Thesealhuraish Compressed

Evaluation of the performance of organizations that
implemented Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma

methods : application to French industries
Ibrahim Alhuraish
To cite this version:

Ibrahim Alhuraish. Evaluation of the performance of organizations that implemented Lean Manufac-
turing and Six Sigma methods : application to French industries. Chemical and Process Engineering.
Université d’Angers, 2016. English. �NNT : 2016ANGE0018�. �tel-01435145�
HAL Id: tel-01435145

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01435145
Submitted on 13 Jan 2017
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Ibrahim Alhuraish
Mémoire présenté en vue de l’obtention du
grade de Docteur de l’Université d’Angers
sous le label de L’Université Nantes Angers Le Mans
Discipline : Sciences de l’ingénieur

Laboratoire : Laboratoire Angevin de Recherche en Ingénierie des Systèmes
Soutenue le 05 juillet 2016
École doctorale : 503 (STIM)

Thèse N° : 78429
L’évaluation des performances des

organisations implémentant les méthodes
Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma : Application
aux industries Françaises
JURY
Rapporteurs : M. Benoît Eynard, Professeur des universités, Université de Technologie de Compiègne

M. Georges Abdulnour, Professeur des universités, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Examinateurs : M. Dumoulin Régis, Professeur des universités, Université d’Angers

M. Samir Lamouri, Professeur des universités, ENSAM Paris Tech
Directeur de Thèse : M. Abdessamad Kobi, Professeur à l’Institut des Sciences et Technologies de l’Ingénieur d’Angers
Co-directeur de Thèse: M. Christian Roblédo, Maître de conférences à l’Institut des Sciences et Technologies de l’Ingénieur d’Angers
1
Remerciements
J’exprime mes profonds remerciements et toute ma gratitude à Monsieur Abdessamad Kobi,
Professeur à l’Université d’Angers et directeur de thèse, qui m’a permis d’effectuer cette thèse.
Pour ses conseils, son soutien, pour sa constante disponibilité, sa patience, je lui exprime mes
sincères et cordiaux remerciements.
Je tiens à exprimer toute ma gratitude et remercie vivement Monsieur Christian Roblédo,

Président de l’université d’Angers et co-directeur de thèse pour son aide, sa disponibilité, ses
judicieux conseils pendant toute la durée de ma thèse. Sa patience et sa pédagogie sont
exemplaires. Son œil critique m’a été́ très précieux pour guider et structurer mon travail pendant
toutes ces années de thèse.
Je tiens également à remercier Monsieur Benoît Eynard, Professeur des universités à l’Université
de Technologie de Compiègne, d’avoir accepté de juger ce travail de recherche, en qualité de
rapporteur.
Mes remerciements s’adressent à Monsieur Georges Abdulnour , Professeur des universités à

l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, d’avoir accepté d’être parmi les membres du jury en
tant que rapporteur et aussi de son engagement dans le comité de suivi de thèse.
Je tiens à remercier Monsieur Samir Lamouri, Professeur des universités à l’ENSAM Paris Tech,
d’avoir accepté de juger ce travail de recherche, en qualité d’examinateur.
Je tiens à remercier Monsieur Dumoulin Régis, Professeur des universités, à l’Université

d’Angers, d’avoir accepté de juger ce travail de recherche et sa participation au comité de suivi
de thèse.
Je ne saurais assez exprimer mes remerciements les plus sincères pour le gouvernement saoudien
de m’avoir soutenu à réaliser ce travail de thèse. Mes remerciements vont également au
gouvernement français qui m’a donné l'occasion d'étudier en France.
Un immense merci à ma chère famille pour leur amour et leur soutien constant et leur
encouragement. Je dédie cette thèse à mon père Mohammed Alhuraish, à ma mère Sara Alhuraish
qui a tout fait pour moi pendant des moments difficiles, à mes frères et sœurs Thamer, Khaled,
Abudallah, Nora, Fadwa, et sans oublier ma tendre chérie Maha pour son soutien.
Un très grand merci à tous les membres du laboratoire Angevin de Recherche en Ingénierie des
Systèmes (LARIS) de l'Université d'Angers pour leur conseil et leur soutien et tout le personnel
de 'Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Ingénieur d'Angers (ISTIA). J’adresse ma cordialité
aux collègues du bureau : Achraf, Khadim, Fally, Khaoula, Amine, Alejandro.
2
3
Table of Contents
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 20
1.1. RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................ 21

1.2. RESEARCH INVESTIGATION & QUESTION ............................................................ 22
1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 23
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................. 26
2.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 26

2.2. HISTORY OF LEAN MANUFACTURING .................................................................. 26
2.3. LEAN MANUFACTURING ...................................................................................... 26
2.4. HISTORY OF SIX SIGMA ........................................................................................ 28
2.5. SIX SIGMA METHOD ............................................................................................. 30
2.6. LEAN MANUFACTURING AND SIX SIGMA TOOLS ................................................. 33
2.7. LEAN MANUFACTURING VS. SIX SIGMA .............................................................. 45
2.7.1. Implementation Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma Isolation ................................ 46

2.7.2. Begin implementing of Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma ................................... 48
2.7.3. Integrate Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma ........................................................ 49
2.8. KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR LEAN MANUFACTURING VERSUS SIX SIGMA ........... 49
2.9. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 53
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 56
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................... 56

3.2. RELIABILITY TEST ................................................................................................ 57
3.3. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE......................................................................................... 57
3.4. TESTING THE RELIABILITY ................................................................................... 58
3.5. TESTING THE NORMALITY ................................................................................... 60
3.6. RESULT OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS (DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS) .................... 63
4. ANALYSIS THE IMPACT OF LEAN MANUFACTURING AND/OR SIX-SIGMA

IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 71
4.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 71

4.2. IMPACT OF LEAN MANUFACTURING AND/OR SIX-SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION ON
PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES ........................................................................................... 71
4.2.1. Age ......................................................................................................................... 83

4.2.2. Period of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma ................................... 83
4.2.3. Implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously ......................... 84
4.2.4. Extending lean Manufacturing and six sigma ........................................................ 97
4.2.5. Degree of success of adoption Lean Manufacturing & Six Sigma ........................ 99
4
4.2.6. Belt system ........................................................................................................... 104
4.3. THE KEY SUCCESS FACTORS OF LEAN MANUFACTURING VERSUS SIX SIGMA .. 105
4.3.1. Compare success factors Lean Manufacturing & Six Sigma ............................... 107
4.3.2. The reason of the comparison of both methods could be valuable ...................... 114
4.4. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 116
5. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANUFACTURING AND

SIX SIGMA PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 119
5.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 119

5.2. LEAN MANUFACTURING AND SIX SIGMA PRACTICES.......................................... 119
5.3. DEGREE LEVEL OF LEAN MANUFACTURING AND SIX SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION 132
5.4. DEGREE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANUFACTURING AND SIX SIGMA
PRACTICES WITHIN RESPECTIVE ORGANISATIONS ...................................................... 147
5.5. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 152
6. EVALUATION OF COMPANIES PERFORMANCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF LEAN MANUFACTURING AND SIX SIGMA WITH DECISION MAKING BASED
ON THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS................................................................ 154
6.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 154

6.2. OVERVIEW OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS ............................................... 155
6.3. AHP USED FOR BEST OR OPTIMAL METHOD CHOICE .......................................... 157
6.3.1. Evaluation companies performance based on optimal methods .......................... 157

6.3.2. Evaluation companies performance based on type of industry ............................ 178
6.4. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 186
GENERAL CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH................................................. 187
APPENDIX 201
5
List of Figure
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Scenario adopted for this research ........................................................................... 23
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1: Lean manufacturing principles ................................................................................ 29

Figure 2.2: Illustration for Ishikawa Diagram ............................................................................ 35
Figure 2.3: Illustration for check sheet ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.4: Typical control chart ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 2.5: Illustration pareto chart ............................................................................................ 38
Figure 2.6: Illustration process flow chart .................................................................................. 39
Figure 2.7: Illustration Value stream Mapping .......................................................................... 40
Figure 2.8: Illustrate Kanban card .............................................................................................. 44
Figure 2.9: Illustrate visual card ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 2.10: Illustrate of practicing one piece flow ................................................................... 44
Figure 2.11: Illustrate SMED ..................................................................................................... 45
Figure 2.12: Diagram demonstrated the similarites between Lean and Six Sigma .................... 46
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: Classification of companies based on professional ................................................. 64

Figure 3.2: Classification of companies based on type Industry ................................................ 64
Figure 3.3: Extending of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation ............................ 68
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: Frequency of responses enterprises on increase profit............................................. 73

Figure 4.2: Frequency of responses enterprises in reduce cost .................................................. 74
Figure 4.3: Frequency of responses enterprises in improve quality ........................................... 75
Figure 4.4: Frequency of responses enterprises in reduce variation........................................... 76
Figure 4.5: Frequency of responses enterprises in improve productivity................................... 77
Figure 4.6: Frequency of responses enterprises in reduce time .................................................. 78
Figure 4.7: Frequency of responses enterprises in customer satisfaction................................... 78
Figure 4.8: Frequency of responses enterprises in decreases inventory ..................................... 79
Figure 4.9: Frequency of responses enterprises in improve safety environment ....................... 80
Figure 4.10: Frequency of responses enterprises in increases suggestions from the employees 81
Figure 4.11: Frequency of responses enterprises in involve employees .................................... 82
Figure 4.12: Frequency of responses enterprises in reduce turnover rate .................................. 83
Figure 4.13: Status of increase profit on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously ....... 86
Figure 4.14: Status of reduce cost on implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma
simultaneously .................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4.15: Status of improve quality on implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma
simultaneously .................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.16: Status of reduce variation on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously .... 88
6
Figure 4.17: Status of improve productivity on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously
............................................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 4.18: Status of reduce time on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously ........... 89
Figure 4.19: Status of safety environment on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously 90
Figure 4.20: Status of decrease inventory on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously 91
Figure 4.21: Status of increase customer satisfaction on implemented lean and six sigma
simultaneously .................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.22: Status of increase suggestion from the employees on implemented lean and six
sigma simultaneously ......................................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.23: Status of involve employees on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously 93
Figure 4.24: Status of reduce turnover rate on implemented lean and six sigma simultaneously
............................................................................................................................................ 93
Figure. 4.25: Reasons of not implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously 95
Figure 4.26: Reasons of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously....... 96
Figure 4.27: Success level for lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation ................. 100
Figure 4.28: Extending lean manufacturing against the success level ..................................... 101
Figure 4.29: Extending lean manufacturing against the success level ..................................... 102
Figure 4.30: Comparison belt systems vs. no belt system across companies performance ..... 105
Figure 4.31: Comparison lean manufacturing vs. six sigma across key success factors that
statistically significant ...................................................................................................... 110
Figure 4.32: Comparison lean vs. six sigma across key success factors that statistically
insignificant ...................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4.33: Box plot showing the distribution of success level between lean manufacturing vs.
six sigma ........................................................................................................................... 113
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Status of lean manufacturing and six sigma practices ............................................ 120
Figure 5.2: Comparsion the effectiveness of lean manufacturing six sigma practices for finacail
perfroamcne. ..................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 5.3: Comparsion the effectiveness of lean and six sigma practices for opeartional
perfroamcne ...................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 5.4: Comparsion the effectiveness of lean six sigma practices for innovation
perfroamcne. ..................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 5.5: Comparison Between Levels of 5S implementation and Financial Performance .. 135
Figure 5.6: Comparison between Levels of kaizen implementation and Financial Performance
.......................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 5.7: Comparison between Levels of Stander work implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 5.8: Comparison between Levels of TPM implementation and Financial Performance
.......................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.9: Comparison between Levels of Tak time implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 5.10: Comparison between Levels of One Piece Flow implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 5.11: Comparison between Levels of Poka Yoke implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 139
Figure 5.12: Comparison between Levels of visual control implementation and Financial
Performance. ..................................................................................................................... 140
7
Figure 5.13: Comparison between Levels of Gemba implementation and Financial
Performance. ..................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 5.14: Comparison between Levels of VSM implementation and Financial Performance
.......................................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 5.15: Comparison between Levels of Kanabn implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 5.16: Comparison between Levels of check sheet implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 142
Figure 5.17: Comparison between Levels of cause and effect implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 142
Figure 5.18: Comparison between Levels of flow chart implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 5.19: Comparison between Levels of FEMA implementation and Financial Performance
.......................................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 5.20: Comparison Between Levels of DMAIC implementation and Financial
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 5.21: Comparison Between Levels of SMED implementation and Financial Performance
.......................................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 5.22: Comparison Between Levels of regression analysis and Financial Performance 145
Figure 5.23: Comparison Between Levels of PDCA and Financial Performance ................... 145
Figure 5.24: Comparison Between Levels of voice of customer and Financial Performance 146
Figure 5.25: Comparison Between Levels of DPMO and Financial Performance .................. 146
Figure 5.26: Comparison between Levels of control chart and Financial Performance .......... 147
Figure 5.27: Comparison between Levels of cellular layout and Financial Performance ........ 147
Figure 5.28: level of practicing lean manufacturing and six sigma among three categories ... 150
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: Hierarchical structure decision............................................................................... 159

Figure 6.2: Performance Outcomes for Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma. ............................... 166
Figure 6.3: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for increase profit .... 166
Figure 6.4: Frequency the response enterprises among three category for improve quality. ... 167
Figure 6.5: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for reduce variation. 167
Figure 6.6: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for reduce cost. ........ 168
Figure 6.7: Frequency the response enterprises among three category for suggestion from the
employees. ........................................................................................................................ 168
Figure 6.8: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for involve employees
.......................................................................................................................................... 169
Figure 6.9: the response enterprises for three groups status under customer satisfaction ........ 169
Figure 6.10: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for decrease inventory.
.......................................................................................................................................... 170
Figure 6.11: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for Reduce turnover
rate .................................................................................................................................... 170
Figure 6.12: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for creates safety
environment ...................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 6.13: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for reducing time ... 171
Figure 6.14: Frequency the response enterprises among three categories for improve
productivity....................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 6.15: Prioritize the ratings words Excellent, above average, average, below average,
poor ................................................................................................................................... 172
8
Figure 6.16: Priorities on Financial performance for each category (A, B, C). ....................... 174
Figure 6.17: Box plot of the overall value for financial performance ...................................... 174
Figure 6.18: Priorities weight on operational performance for each category (A, B, C) ......... 176
Figure 6.19: Box plot of the overall data value under operational performance ...................... 176
Figure 6.20: Priorities weight on innovation performance for each category (A, B, C) .......... 177
Figure 6.21: Box plot of the overall value under innovation performance .............................. 178
Figure 6.22: Hierarchical structure decision............................................................................. 179
Figure 6.23: Percentage of agreement status on financial performance by industry................ 181
Figure 6.24: Percentage of agreement status on Operational performance by industry ........... 182
Figure 6.25: Percentage of agreement status on innovation performance by industry............. 183
Figure 6.26: Percentages for Reduced Turnover Rates by industry ......................................... 184
9
List of Table
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Five phases for Six Sigma .......................................................................................... 31

Table 2.2 Sigma level ................................................................................................................. 31
Table 2.3 DMAIC Process and Tools ......................................................................................... 32
Table 2.4 Illustrations the benefits and savings from Six Sigma implementation ..................... 33
Table 2.5 Voice of customer....................................................................................................... 42
Table 2.6 Differences between Lean and Six Sigma .................................................................. 46
Table 2.7 Lean and Six Sigma needs each other ........................................................................ 47
Table 2.8 Comparisons between lean and six-sigma methodology............................................ 48
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Measure companies performance ............................................................................... 57

Table 3.2 Reliability for the impact of lean manufacturing and six sigma ................................ 59
Table 3.3 Reliability for lean manufacturing and six sigma tools .............................................. 59
Table 3.4 Reliability for Success factors Lean manufacturing and six sigma ............................ 60
Table 3.5 Test of normality for impact of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma .... 61
Table 3.6 Test of normality for tools and technique of lean manufacturing and six sigma ....... 62
Table 3.7 Test of normality for tools and technique of lean manufacturing and six sigma ....... 63
Table 3.8 Age of the organizations............................................................................................. 65
Table 3.9 Number of employees................................................................................................. 65
Table 3.9.1 Size of companies .................................................................................................... 65
Table 3.10 Type of certification ................................................................................................. 66
Table 3.11 Belts system status.................................................................................................... 66
Table 3.12 Implementation methods .......................................................................................... 67
Table 3.13 Numbers of years have enterprises implemented lean and six sigma methodologies
............................................................................................................................................ 67
Table 3.14 Performance measure for all companies .................................................................. 67
Table 3.15 Extending lean and six sigma method ...................................................................... 68
Table 3.16 Status level of lean manufacturing and six-sigma tools ........................................... 69
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Correlation among financial, operational, and innovation performance .................... 72
Table 4.2 The effect of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on increase profit . 73
Table 4.3 The effect of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on reduce cost ...... 74
Table 4.4 The effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on improve quality
............................................................................................................................................ 75
Table 4.5 The effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on reduce variation
............................................................................................................................................ 75
Table 4.6 The effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on improves
productivity......................................................................................................................... 76
Table 4.7 The effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on reduces time ... 77
10
Table 4.8 The effect of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on customer
satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 78
Table 4.9 the effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on decreases
inventory ............................................................................................................................. 79
Table 4.10 the effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on safety
environment ........................................................................................................................ 80
Table 4.11 The effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on increases
suggestions ......................................................................................................................... 81
Table 4.12 the effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on involve
employees ........................................................................................................................... 82
Table 4.13 the effect of Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on reduce turnover
rate ...................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 4.14 Mean on performance outcome across period of time ............................................. 84
Table 4.15 The status on implemented the methodologies of lean manufacturing and six sigma
simultaneously .................................................................................................................... 85
Table 4.16 Statement that SME should follow for implementing lean and six sigma ............... 94
Table 4.17 Status of lean and Six Sigma and their recommended to begin implemented in case
SME .................................................................................................................................... 94
Table 4.18 Citification vs. Lean manufacturing and six sigma .................................................. 97
Table 4.19 Comparable between the extending level for lean and six sigma ............................ 98
Table 4.20 Comparable impact in performance of extending the level of lean and six sigma... 99
Table 4.21 Success degree of implementation lean Manufacturing, six sigma ........................ 100
Table 4.21.1 Estimate the level of success of each method ..................................................... 100
Table 4.22 Extending lean manufacturing against the success level ........................................ 101
Table 4.23 Extending six sigma against the success level ....................................................... 102
Table 4.24 Extend of lean manufacturing ................................................................................ 102
Table 4.25 Extend of six sigma ................................................................................................ 103
Table 4.26 Level of lean manufacturing success ...................................................................... 103
Table 4.27 Level of six-sigma success ..................................................................................... 104
Table 4.28 The results of a comparison between companies that used belt systems & not used
belt systems ...................................................................................................................... 104
Table 4.29 A comparable ranking the success factors of implementing Lean manufacturing and
Six Sigma.......................................................................................................................... 109
Table 4.30 Wilcoxon signed ranks test for comparison the key success factors of implementing
Lean vs. Six Sigma ........................................................................................................... 110
Table 4.31 Success factors of implementing lean manufacturing ............................................ 113
Table 4.32 Success factors of implementing six sigma ............................................................ 114
Table 4.33 Status integration of lean and Six Sigma and their recommended to begin
implemented in case SME ................................................................................................ 115
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Lean manufacturing and six sigma tools .................................................................. 120
Table 5.2 Comparison impact performance across implemented and not implemented lean and
six sigma tools .................................................................................................................. 121
six sigma tools .................................................................................................................. 122
six sigma tools .................................................................................................................. 123
11
six sigma tools .................................................................................................................. 124
six sigma tools .................................................................................................................. 125
Table 5.7 Statuses of SME and Large against Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma ................ 132
Table 5.8 Present the status of how do enterprises implemented lean and six-sigma tools ..... 133
Table 5.9 Relationship between the level of lean and six sigma implementation and companies
performance. ..................................................................................................................... 134
Table 5.10 Range lean manufacturing and six sgima among three groups . ............................ 148
Table 5.11 Degree level of lean six sigma implementation between SME and large companies
.......................................................................................................................................... 151
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 The results of Cronbach’s alpha ............................................................................... 158
Table 6.2 The AHP pairwise comparison scale ........................................................................ 160
Table 6.3 Priority weights for criteria ...................................................................................... 161
Table 6.4 Random consistency index (RI) ............................................................................... 161
Table 6.5 Overall priority weights for criteria .......................................................................... 162
Table 6.6 Priority weights for criteria & subcriteria for evaluator 1 ........................................ 162
Table 6.9 Priority weights for criteria & subcriteria scale for evaluator 4 ............................... 164
Table 6.10 Overall weights of criteria & subcriteria ................................................................ 164
Table 6.11 Comparing companies performances amongs three groups .................................. 165
Table 6.12 Altrtnatives with repect to each category A, B, C ................................................. 173
Table 6.13 The weight of the alternative for financial performance ........................................ 174
Table 6.14 The weight of the alternative for operational performance .................................... 175
Table 6.15 The weight of the alternative for innovation performance ..................................... 177
Table 6.16 Alternatives with respect to Industries ................................................................... 179
Table 6.17 The weight of the alternative for financial performance based on industry ........... 180
Table 6.18 The weight of the alternative for operational performance based on industry ....... 182
Table 6.19 The weight of the alternative for innovation performance based on industry........ 183
Table 6.20 Measure the impacts of methodology implementation with various industries ..... 185
12
13
Abbreviation
PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act
TPS Toyota Production System
VSM Value Stream Map
FEMA Failure Mode Effects Analysis
TQM Total Quality Management
DMAIC Define Measure analysis Improve Control
DPMO Defect Per Million Opportunities
VOC Voice of Customer
SMED Single Minute Exchange of Die
TPM Total Productivity Maintenance
CTQ Critical to Quality
Poka-yoke Mistake Proofing & Prevention
MBB Master Black Belt
BB Black Belt
GB Green Belt
YB Yellow Belt
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
CR Consistency Ratio
RI Random consistency index
STD Stander deviation
14
The work of this thesis is resulted in the following:
Two Journal Articles:
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2016). The Key Success Factors for Lean Manufacturing
versus Six Sigm. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology, 12(2): p. 169-182.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. Kobi, A. and Azzabi, L (2016). Estimate of Companies Performance

in the Implementation of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma with Analytic Hierarchy Process.
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage (Accepted for publication).
Six International Conference:
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Assessment of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma
operation with Decision Making Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. IFAC conference on
Manufacturing Modelling Management & Control . 28 – 30 June 2016, Troyes-France.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Impacts of lean manufacturing and six sigma. In 9th
ISSAT International Conference on Reliability and Quality in Design-RQD . 4 - 6 August 2016,
Los Angles-United State.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. The effective of lean manufacturing and six sigma
implementation. IEEE Conference in Industrial Engineering and Systems Management
(IESM) International, 21 – 23 October 2015, Seville-Spain, p. 453-460.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Evaluation the operational performance of implementing

lean manufacturing and six sigma. International conference on industrial Engineering , 26 - 28
October 2015, Quebéc-Canada.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Key Success Factors of Implementing Lean

Manufacturing and Six Sigma. 17th Toulon-Verona Conference Excellence in Services , 28 –
29 August 2014, Liverpool-United Kingdom, p. 1-16.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Lean and six sigma: a comparative study. International
Conference in Quality and Dependability, 17 – 19 September 2014, Sinaia, Romania, p. 6 -10.
15
Résumé
Dans un marché international, de plus en plus globalisé et caractérisé par une concurrence
féroce, les entreprises cherchent à améliorer l'efficacité de leurs processus et ainsi niveler les
performances opérationnelles et financières. Pour atteindre ces objectives, les entreprises font
appel à des méthodes de management comme le Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma afin de
parvenir à une amélioration continue des indicateurs opérationnels, financiers et d'innovation.
De nos jours, le Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma sont devenus des méthodologies
indispensables pour soutenir l'amélioration de la performance avec des résultats palpables et
fo ts. Cette th se po te su l’ valuatio de la ise e œuv e de Lea Ma ufa tu i g et Si Sig a
au sein des entreprises françaises. Les questions auxquelles nous avons essayé de répondre
sont donc :
 Est-ce que les entreprises françaises bénéficient-elles des résultats de performance lors
de la ise e œuv e de Lea Ma ufa tu i g et Si Sig a ?
 Y-a-t-il u e a i e sp ifi ue au e t ep ises f a çaises pou la ise e œuv e de Lea

Manufacturing et Six Sigma ?
 Quelles sont les améliorations obtenues, au sein des entreprises françaises, via la mise
e œuv e de Lea Ma ufa tu i g et Six Sigma (la qualité, la réduction des coûts et la
productivité) ?
L'objectif de ce mémoire est d'évaluer les résultats de performance pour les entreprises
françaises via l’i pl e tatio des thodologies Lea Ma ufa tu i g et Si Sig a. E out e,
nous avons tenté de distinguer les outils qui ont permis aux entreprises étudiées une
implémentation réussie de Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma. Nous avons également visé à
ide tifie les fa teu s l s de su s de leu ise e œuv e. L’ tude vise aussi à identifier s'il
existe des différences et des similitudes importantes entre les facteurs de succès de Lean
Manufacturing et Six Sigma. En conséquence, une comparaison des facteurs clés de succès de
Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma a été réalisée. La littérature scientifique et les pratiques dans
e do ai e v le t ue la ise e œuv e « réussie » le Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma
aboutit à des meilleurs résultats en termes de performance globale des entreprises. En outre,
ous avo s e a i les a a t isti ues des e t ep ises a a t is e œuv e le Lea
Manufacturing et Six Sigma simultanément ou séparément, en prenant en compte les
entreprises qui ont adapté des normes telles que ISO 9001 et ISO 14001.
Une analyse AHP « Analytic Hierarchy Process » a été également réalisée pour évaluer la
pe fo a e de t ois at go ies d’e t ep ises (So i t s A = ise e œuv e de Lean
Ma ufa tu i g et Si Sig a, B = e t ep ises etta t e œuv e la production Lean, C = les
entreprises utilisant des outils limités de qualité) en termes des méthodes les plus efficientes
qui ont été appliquées. Cette évaluation a été basée sur trois critères : la performance
financière, la performance opérationnelle et la performance de l'innovation
16
Dans cette thèse, nous avons établi une enquête sous forme de questionnaire qui a été
distribué au plus de 100 entreprises en France. De ce fait, nos résultats sont basés sur les
données collectées des 33 entreprises qui ont répondu.
De manière globale, les résultats montrent que les entreprises appliquant Lean Manufacturing
et Six Sigma sont plus efficaces en termes de l'amélioration des performances financières et
opérationnelles. Par ailleurs, les entreprises qui utilisent juste une partie des pratiques de Lean
Manufacturing et/ou de Six Sigma ont montré des améliorations limitées. En ce qui concerne le
volet i ovatio , ous avo s o t ue l’i pl e tatio de Lea Manufacturing est
suffisante pour avoir une amélioration des performances. Cette étude a aussi révélé que le Lean
Manufacturing et/ou Six Sigma supportent de manière significative une amélioration de la
performance de l'entreprise, et montré que de o euses e t ep ises da s l’i dust ie
française ont récemme t is e œuv e le Lean Manufacturing et/ou Si Sig a. L’e u te
montre que la plupart des industries françaises appliquent des outils comme le Brainstorming,
le t avail sta da dis , le o t ôle visuel, le PDCA, et 5S, d’u e pa t. D'aut e pa t, peu
d'entrep ises o t e o u l'i po ta e des outils statisti ues tels ue les pla s d’e p ie es,
DPMO, DMAIC, et l'analyse de régression.
Cette recherche a également révélé qu'il existe des différences significatives entre les petites-
moyennes entreprises et les grandes entreprises en termes d’utilisatio des outils tels que
DMAIC, DPMO et One Piece Flow. En ce qui concerne les facteurs du succès pour le Lean
Manufacturing et Six Sigma, nous avons mis en lumière des différences statistiquement
significatives dans le iveau d'i po ta e d’adaptatio de e tai s fa teu s da s la ise e
œuv e de Lea Ma ufa tu i g ou Si Sig a, pa e e ple les fa teu s « changement de la
culture », « la communication » et « la participation des employés ». En outre, le résultat
indique que les certifications, telles que ISO 9001 o t au u e i flue e su la ise e œuv e de
Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma en même temps. Ce tai s se teu s d’i dust ies o e
l'automobile, les services, et l'électronique ont montré une efficacité excellente en matière
d'i ovatio , d'e ploitatio et fi a i e. De plus, ette tude o t e l’a se e de Lea
Manufacturing et/ou Six Sigma dans le secteur de la santé en France.
Au travers cette thèse, nous avons montré pour la première fois que les entreprises françaises
bénéficient, comme ses semblables internationales (ex. japonaises, Etats Unis), de la mise en
œuv e des thodes de Lea Ma ufa tu i g et Si Sig a afi d’aug e te le e de e t
financier, la performance opérationnelle et la performance de l'innovation. Ce travail réaffirme
l’i po ta e de es thodes e o e u e fois o e il a t d o t da s d’aut es pa s.
17
18
CHAPTER 1.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
19
1. General introduction
In today’s increasingly globalized market, companies are seeking to improve
competitiveness through the use of quality approach to increase efficiency in operational and
financial performance. They are no longer satisfied with merely improving operations and
finances in general, but also want to achieve continuous improvements in key operational and
financial indicators, such as better quality of services and products, waste and cost reduction,
improved customer and job satisfaction, and greater innovation. Companies are now considering
improvements in quality and efficiency as the most productive route to greater competitiveness
(Favaro, 2015). Quality here refers to the management of processes such that both input and
output comply with best practice in terms of minimizing waste and cost and putting all resources
into productive use, while efficiency refers to reducing costs and waste to achieve optimal
production (Favaro, 2015). According to Romaniello et al. (2011), when companies fail to take
advantage of methods designed to help improve quality, such as total quality management
(TQM), lean, six sigma, agile manufacturing, and the theory of constraints, manufacturing output
is poor. The recent developments of highly competitive global markets have put further pressure
on companies to meet the demand for high quality in terms of production and of efficiency in
customer services. In other words, any company wishing to be competitive and serviceable must
implement quality management as a means of satisfying both customer and market demands.
Many companies have succeeded in achieving quality goals at low cost through the use
of a number of approaches to improving quality, including total quality management (TQM),
lean manufacturing, six sigma, and a number of other methods that evaluate problems and
solutions utilizing various quality control philosophies. In order to achieve quality and efficiency
to gain a competitive advantage, many companies today use lean and six sigma methodologies
(Favaro, 2015). These two particular approaches have proven to be powerful and effective in
improving quality, speed, and efficiency through lowering cost and waste while achieving
customer satisfaction, and have grown in popularity during recent decades. Lean, six sigma, or
the combined approach, lean six sigma, can be applied to any industry, including hospitals,
electronics, and automobile manufacture, for example (George, 2002). Lean manufacturing
refers to an approach designed to lower the cost and waste involved in production, with a view
to maximizing output (Meade et al., 2010). Research has shown that companies that implement
and practice lean manufacturing or lean production see significant improvements in operational
performance (Shah and Ward, 2003). According to Montgomery and Woodall (2008), six
sigma is a statistical technique that allows a scientific evaluation of processes and transactions,
with the aims of reducing variability and of removing defects in operation. Lean originated from
the Toyota Production System, with a focus on the elimination of waste in production, starting
from the time an order is placed and ending when the order is delivered (Pojasek, 2003). Six
sigma was introduced by the Motorola Corporation and is designed to eliminate variations in
production and services and the processes involved so that defects are reduced and customer
satisfaction is improved (Andersson et al., 2006 and Desai, 2006). Many industries have been
motivated to implement both lean manufacturing and six sigma because of the great success of
these approaches in improving performance by reducing costs, improving productivity, and
20
reducing the cycle time of an organization. However, their successful implementation depends
on a company’s ability to identify opportunities for reducing costs and waste (Guarraia et al.,
2008). A review of the literature reveals that the successful implementation of lean six sigma
yields greater improvements in performance outcomes than lean manufacturing or six sigma
alone. Lean manufacturing, which focuses on reducing waste, is not on its own sufficient to
increase a company’s performance in terms of increased profit and reduced cost. Where six sigma
focuses on reducing defects. However, a combination of the two methods should allow an
organization to benefit from significant improvements in a short period of time at a significantly
reduced cost (Mousa, 2013, George, 2002). It therefore follows that, for optimal results,
organizations could consider integrating lean manufacturing and six sigma methodologies to
achieve waste reduction, improvements in value, and greater customer satisfaction. The work
described in this thesis focuses on both lean manufacturing and six sigma, with the aim of
demonstrating their compatibility, as well as their differences, in the context of achieving
continuous improvement in French industries.
This first, introductory chapter contains the research problem, the research investigation
and the research objective. The second chapter provides a review of the literature on lean
manufacturing and six sigma, including their history and definition, as well as the tools and key
success factors involved. The third chapter describes the research methodology applied in this
investigation: the research design, the sampling technique, and the tests of reliability and
normality. It also discusses the implications for practical implementation and analysis of the
results obtained. The fourth chapter discusses how lean manufacturing and/or six sigma can be
applied in practice, including their combined implementation, as well as the key success factors
involved and the variables that help to increase company performance. The fifth chapter presents
and discusses the results obtained with lean manufacturing and/or six sigma tools in practice. The
sixth chapter describes the integration of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model with lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma implementation, together with the results of a statistical
investigation of different categories aimed at determining effective methodologies for increasing
companies’ performance outcomes. Finally, concluding remarks are given, with a summary of
the research findings as well as prospects for future research.
1.1. Research problem
Many companies today seek to improve quality management as a route to better competitiveness
in a globalized market where consumer demands are changing more rapidly and are more complex
than ever before. Literature review has shown that in order to improve quality management,
several quality methodologies are available, including lean manufacturing, and six sigma, among
others. Therefore a number of problems arise for consideration in this context: Do French
companies benefit in terms of performance outcomes when they implement lean manufacturing
and six sigma? Is there a specific way in which French companies have implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma that accounts for their performance outcomes? Thus, do French
companies implementing and extending the practice of lean and six sigma achieve improvements
in quality, reduced cost, and productivity as reported in the literature? Additionally, there has been
21
a lack of consideration in the literature of differences in key success factors for lean manufacturing
compared with six sigma. Therefore, the question arises as to the nature of the factors that are
relevant for companies in achieving successful implementation of lean manufacturing and six
sigma.
1.2. Research Investigation and Question
This study examines the implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma, alone and in
combination, and estimates the impact of such implementation on French industries with regard
to performance outcomes. It also identifies the current status of lean manufacturing and six sigma
in these industries, considering, for example, the range of implementation of these techniques.
The aim is to identify the potential benefits and the relationship between performance outcomes
and the extent to which lean manufacturing and six sigma are employed. Additionally, a number
of important points are illustrated, among which is the controversy regarding whether the two
methodologies should be applied simultaneously or separately. In addition, there is the question
of comparing companies that have implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma, either
simultaneously or separately, with those that are accredited with regard to standards such as ISO
9001 and ISO 14001.
The number of years over which lean manufacturing and/or six sigma have been implemented
are considered, and the impact of this factor on financial and operational performance is
examined. The tools and practices that are relevant to the implementation of lean manufacturing
or six sigma, such as the Kaizen team, Kanban, DPMO, Visual Control, SMED, and 5S, are
investigated, with the aim of identifying which are able to increase company performance. This
research also seeks to identify the key success factors for implementing lean manufacturing and
six sigma within French industry. The aim is to discover whether there are significant differences
and similarities among the common success factors for lean manufacturing and six sigma and
whether there are differences in priority among these. The respective factors that have turned out
to be most critical for those companies that have successfully implemented either lean
manufacturing or six sigma are investigated. Finally, the levels of success of implementation of
lean manufacturing, six sigma, or both, are investigated. In summary, this research investigates
the implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma within French industry by focusing on
the following questions:
 What are the impacts of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma?
 What are the impacts of implementing lean manufacturing only?
 What are the differences in terms of benefits obtained between companies implementing
both lean manufacturing and six sigma, those implementing lean manufacturing only, and
those that use just a limited range of tools from lean manufacturing and six sigma?
 How has lean manufacturing extended through French industry?
 How has six sigma extended through French industry?
 Which tools and practices associated with either lean manufacturing or six sigma support
reductions in cost and inventory, improvements in quality, reductions in turnover rate,
improvements in profit, etc.?
22
As demonstrated in Figure 1, the research scenario begins with the objective of the research,
namely, to evaluate the performance of these methods within French industry in terms of
performance outcome, tool, success factors, etc. An extensive literature review is then
conducted, selecting appropriate variables from the literature and examining the views of experts
with regard to lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation. Next, appropriate research
methodologies are applied to obtain empirical data, through visiting various enterprises and
through the use of questionnaires. Then, results are subjected to statistical analysis such as the
multicriteria decision-making method and a nonparametric test. Finally, the overall results
obtained from this research are discussed in comparison with those from the literature review.
24
CHAPTER 2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
25
2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
The literature review showed that several industries have achieved significantly increased incomes
by implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma. The companies in France that have done so
include Alstom, 3M, Essilor, Technip and Safran, Oréal, and STMicroelectronics (USINE
NOUVELLE). To deploy lean manufacturing or six sigma successfully, there are various
requirements, such as the use of appropriate tools and techniques and consideration of a number
of key factors. Therefore, this chapter discusses the history and principles of lean manufacturing
and six sigma, as well as tools, techniques, and success factors.
2.2. History of Lean Manufacturing
The origin of the lean manufacturing approach is attributed to the Toyota Motor Company
(Womack, 1990). At the end of the Second World War, Japanese manufacturers faced challenges
of shortages of both materials and financial and human resources (Khalil and Abu Shaaban,
2013). Toyota developed lean manufacturing with the aim of addressing their specific needs in a
market that was restricted during economically troubled times. Through the use of a set of
integrated practices and tools such as interchangeable parts, standard work methods, and
assembly flow lines, Toyota was able to manufacture products at high speed (Manotas Duque
and Rivera Cadavid, 2007). They adopted a lean production system during the 1940s to improve
efficiency and gain a competitive advantage in the motor industry, which was characterized by
stiff competition. They were also able to provide more value to customers. Toyota adopted lean
manufacturing so that it could avoid the need to push products to its clients. Instead, the company
allowed its customers to pull the products (Dora et al., 2013). Thus, customers could provide
specific details about the type of cars they wanted and when they wanted them. Toyota then
sourced raw materials and applied processes to ensure that cars fitting the customer specifications
were manufactured and delivered in a timely manner. The roots of lean manufacturing can also
be traced back to Henry Ford’s invention in 1913 of a production system for the Highland Park
automobile plant, which was integrated in such a way as to facilitate the rapid manufacture of
products (Manotas Duque and Rivera Cadavid, 2007). According to Mostafa et al., (2013),
lean manufacturing can be considered as an important socio-technical mechanism, encompassing
a number of management tools. Krafcik initially introduced the concept of lean in 1988; however,
it was Womack, Jones, and Roos, with their incorporation of lean manufacturing in the Toyota
Production System (TPS) in 1991, who explicitly implemented the principle of lean
manufacturing in a practical context (Womack, 1990).
2.3. Lean Manufacturing
Lean manufacturing operates on a philosophy that production is maximized through the

elimination or reduction of waste and cost in production. Lean manufacturing was introduced
26
with the aim of eliminating all the non-valued activities encountered by an organization, with
lower resources and work force, in order to generate higher returns and value for the
organization (Womack et al., 1990). Besides providing services, lean manufacturing enables an
organization to diminish wastes associated with production of products and services, in order to
manage the value chain associated with production, which consequently reduces the overall
costs. Lean Manufacturing enables the organization to reduce a number of wastes, such as waiting
time, quality defects, production wastes, excessive stock and wastes in the existing process
(Wilson, 2010 and Womack et al., 1990). The goal of lean management is to eliminate waste.
Thus the overarching philosophy of lean manufacturing is “more value with less work” because
it involves producing goods and services by operating less of everything (Anvari, et al., 2011).
2.3.1. Waste
Many organizations have sought to remain competitive in the global market by adopting lean
manufacturing, which reduces costs by eliminating non value added activities (Rahani and al-
Ashraf, 2012). In lean manufacturing, the main aim is to reduce the costs that an organization
incurs in the process of manufacturing by ensuring that the company eliminates waste. However,
several types of waste throughout a company ought to be continuously eliminated. Below, the
seven types of waste attack by the lean manufacturing method are listed, as identified by Toyota:
Over-Production, Waiting Time, Over Processing, Transportation, Inventory, Motion and
Defects (Dailey, 2003).
 Over-Production means that the quantity of material produced is greater or faster than
required. Material should be produced based on customer demand.
 Waiting Time is the idle time that happens during the process, such as operators stood
waiting to receive his or her order in the assembly line or waiting for responses from other
departments etc.
 Over Processing is a surplus of work that doesn’t add value to a product or service.
 Transportation waste is any of the material movement that does not add value to or
support immediate production.
 Inventory waste is any material or work in progress or finished material that exists in the
factory which is not being processed, such as waiting to deliver parts or products that
have already been prepared for transport.
 Motion waste is any effort or movement of people that does not contribute to added value
to the product or service.
 Defect waste represents the efforts needed to repair or inspect the defective items or
service that led to the rework.
Through lean manufacturing, attempts to exclude the seven categories of waste are made, in a
bid to minimize costs. This involves all organizational aspects including over-production,
motion, transportation, waiting, inventory surplus, and defects and over-processing. All-round
value takes preference in lean manufacturing. The main objective is to reduce costs, improve
quality, and achieve appropriate delivery times by total elimination of waste (Wilson, 2010,
27
Womack et al., 1990). Efficiency and attention to detail are very important towards the
achievement of productivity in such industries, and improvements in system efficiency can lead
to elimination of significant waste in terms of material usage, time and labor. Lean manufacturing
is a philosophical approach to managing production and consists of facilitating a system for
eliminating or reducing waste and any activity that does not add value for the end customer (Dora
et al., 2013). At its core, lean manufacturing is a continuous improvement technique focused on
just-in-time (JIT), quality systems and team works (Wong et al., 2009). The lean philosophy is
based on the concept that a resource committed to any faction that is not of value to the customer
is a wasted resource. Therefore, the goal of lean manufacturing is to eliminate waste. The core
schemes or principles of the lean system are presented next.
2.3.2. Lean principle

There are five steps involved in the implementation of the lean principle (See Figure 2.1) and
they are summarized as follows (Taghizadegan, 2006).
1. Value, which describes customer value from the perspective of the customer.
2. Value Stream Map, which includes identifying all products or service activities and the
resources used for producing them.
3. Flow, which involves creating a system in which value is added on a continuous basis, and
anything that does not add value or merely creates obstacles to value is removed.
4. Pull system, which involves input that is consistent only with customer demand and
expectations.
5. Perfection, which involves persistently refining processes for improving efficient operations,
reducing production times, improving quality and reducing costs.
According to Åhlstrom (1998), lean manufacturing is about elimination of waste, ensuring that
there are no defects, scheduling processes as per customer requirements, having excellent team
leaders, continuous improvement, multifunctional teams and flexible information systems. In
lean manufacturing, value is determined by the customer, and the process involves continuous
identification and removal of waste in the manufacturing process (Erfan, 2010). Employees
should be included in the program as well because they are the ones responsible for performing
tasks (Marin-Garcia and Bonavia, 2011). Employees perform maintenance tasks of the lean
manufacturing program. Success of lean manufacturing implementation is influenced by
numerous factors and approaches. However, the most critical factors that contribute to success
are leadership and management skills, employee skills and expertise, financial factors and an
organizational culture that is supportive (Achanga et al., 2006). In lean manufacturing, the main
aim is to reduce the costs that an organization incurs in the process of manufacturing by ensuring
that the company manufactures the right quantity of products and delivers them to clients in time.
Consequently, warehouse requirements, labor, and time are reduced (Goriwondo and Maunga,
2012). Generally, a company should be able to specify customer wants and timelines and all the
processes and activities that are required to bring the product to the customer. The essential steps
in lean are identification of features that create value including identification of a value stream
28
Together with other pioneering scientists and engineers, Smith sought to develop the six sigma
concept in order to reduce variation, maximize productivity, and improve quality
(Taghizadegan, 2006 and Brun, 2011). Six sigma helped Motorola realize powerful bottom-
line results in their organization. They documented more than $16 billion in savings as the result
of six sigma efforts. Since then, hundreds of companies around the world have adopted six sigma
as a way of doing business. Owing to its numerous advantages, many successful organizations
around the globe have implemented six sigma in order to facilitate corporate management, reduce
the costs associated with their products, enhance customer loyalty, augment sales, and boost their
competency at an organizational level (Chen, 2008). Six sigma can be considered a high-
performance approach, enabling an organization to analyze the core reasons behind problems
that arise and the ways in which such problems can be eliminated in organizational scenarios.
2.5. Six Sigma method
The six sigma method is related to 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO) approach, with
the intention of identifying and eliminating defects, so that an organization can significantly
improve its quality of production (Bryefogle, 1999). Six sigma is applied in an organization as a
means of solving quality problems and designing new and improved processes. The philosophical
premise of six sigma is the reduction of variations in the production process (Nave, 2002). Six
sigma looks to do this through continuous statistical evaluation and the removal of such
variations (Bryefogle, 1999). Furthermore, six sigma can be regarded as a business mechanism
that enables organizations to develop their bottom lines through evaluation of business tasks and
thereby to facilitate reductions in waste as well as an enhanced level of customer satisfaction
(Hekmatpanah et al., 2008). The focus of six sigma is on problem-solving, on the basis that
problems cannot be solved unless they are fully understood. Therefore, six sigma is project-
driven and operates on a statistical basis centered around a five-phase approach to reducing
variations and thereby solving business and operational problems: define, measure, analyze,
implement, and control (DMAIC) (Bryefogle, 1999 and Kwak and Anbari, 2006).
2.5.1. DMAIC
The framework steps for implementing six sigma are Define, Measure, Analysis, Improve and Control
and are provided in the below Table 2.1 (McClusky, 2000). DMAIC is the most commonly used
framework for problem identification and resolution in six sigma. DMAIC structures a continuous process
for improvement via directing a sharp focus on the detection, analysis and resolution of root causes of
process failure (Breyfogle, 1999). Six sigma can be defined as a statistical measure of the performance
of a process, as an aim that reaches near perfection for performance improvements to achieve world-class
performance (Pande et al., 2000). In general six sigma is a methodical and philosophical approach to
problems for improving the quality of production through statistically defining and analyzing problems
as a means of discovering defects per unit and the probability of a failure for implementing solutions and
controls on a continuous level (Desai, 2006). It is thought that by taking this approach, six sigma that
produces zero defects and the risk of defects occurring once the control phase of the DMAIC is
implemented (Goriwondo and Maunga, 2012).
30
Table 2.1 Five phases for Six Sigma
Six sigma step Key Process
Define the requirement and expectations of the customer

Define Define the project boundaries
Define the process by mapping the business flow
Measure the process to satisfy customer’s need
Measure Develop a data collection plan
Collect and compare data to determine issue and shortfalls
Analyze the causes of defects and sources of variation
Analyze Determine the variation in the process
Prioritize opportunities for future improvement
Improve the process to eliminate variation
Improve Develop creative alternatives and implement enhance plan
Control process variation to meet customer requirement
Control Develop strategy to monitor and control the improved process
Implement the improvement of systems and structures
Six-sigma methodologies are applied in an organization as processes of solving quality problems

and designing new and improved processes. As a statistical measure, it defines how much
variation exists in a set of data, a group of items and looks at how well you are meeting customer
requirements. The sigma measure was settled to aid focus measures on the paying customers of
a business, and provides a consistent way to measure and compare different processes (Pande et
al., 2000). Six sigma implies 3.4 defects per million opportunities (see Table 2.2). The six sigma
methodology deals with the intention that identifying and responding to 3.4 defects, the
organization can significantly improve quality of production (Klefsjo et al., 2001). Six sigma
requires the use of several statistical tools that focuses on the reduction of variation. These
statistical tools measure each of the stages of the process evaluation, design and re-design (Zare
Mehrjerdi, 2011).
Table 2.2 Sigma level

Sigma Level Defect per Million Opportunity (DPMO)
6 3.4
5 233
4 6.210
3 66.807
2 308.537
1 690.000
The objective of applying six sigma is to solve identification problems or reduce variation by
implementing the DMAIC framework. The processes involved in DMAIC include several tools
and techniques. Pyzdek and Keller (2003) reviewed the tools and techniques shown in Table
2.3, which require integration with each phase of the DMAIC framework.
31
Table 2.3 DMAIC Process and Tools
Six sigma Key process Tools and technique
phase
Project Charter, collecting
Voice of customer such as
surveys, focus group Process
Define the goals of the improvement activity, and
Map, Quality Function
incorporate into a Project Charter. Obtain sponsorship and
deployment, Supplier Input
Define assemble team
Process Output Customer,
Benchmarking, Project
planning and management
tools, Pareto Analysis.
Measure the existing system. Establish valid and reliable Exploratory data analysis,
Measure metrics to help monitor progress toward the goal(s) defined Descriptive statistics, Run
at the previous step. Establish current process baseline chart, Pareto analysis
performance using metric
Cause-effect diagrams, Tree
diagram, Brainstorming,
Analyze the system to identify ways to eliminate the gap
Process behavior charts,
between the current performance of the system or process
Analyze Process maps, Design of
and the desired goal. Use exploratory and descriptive data
Experiments, Enumerative
analysis to help you understand the data. Use statistical
statistics, Inferential Statistic,
Tools to guide the analysis
Simulation
Improve the system. Be creative in finding new ways to do Force field diagrams, FMEA,
things better, cheaper, or faster. Use Project Management 7M tools, Project planning and
Improve and other planning and management tools to implement the management tools, Prototype
new approach. Use statistical methods to validate the and pilot studies, Simulations
improvement
Control the new system. Institutionalize the improved
system by modifying compensation and incentive systems, SPC, FMEA, ISO 900x
Control policies, and procedures, MRP, budgets, operating Change budgets, bid models,
instructions and other management systems. You may wish cost estimating models,
to utilize standardization such as ISO 9000 to ensure that Reporting system
documentation is correct. Use statistical tools to monitor
stability of the new systems
Source: Pyzdek and Keller, 2003
2.5.2. Benefits of Six Sigma

According to Pande et al. (2000), six sigma has a number of beneficial effects, such as
enhanced success, increased company performance, and enhanced value to customers. Table 2.4
presents a summary of the general benefits to companies of implementing six sigma.
32
Table 2.4 Illustrations the benefits and savings from Six Sigma implementation
Company/project Metric/measures Benefit/savings

Motorola (1992) In-process defect levels 150 times reduction
Raytheon/aircraft integration Depot maintenance inspection time Reduced 88% as measured in days
systems
GE/Railcar leasing business Turnaround time at repair shops 62% reduction
Allied Signal (Honeywell)/ Capacity Cycle time Inventory On- Up 30% Down 50% Down 50%
laminates. plant in South Carolina time delivery Increased to near 100%
Allied Signal (Honeywell) bendix Concept-to-shipment cycle time Reduced from 8 months to 8
IQ brake pads months
Hughes aircraft's missiles systems Quality/productivity Improved 1.000%/improved 500%
group/wave
General electric Financial $2 billion in 1999
Motorola (1999) Financial $15 billion over 11 years
Dow chemical/rail delivery project Financial Savings of $2.45 million in capital
expenditures
DuPont/Yerkces plant in New Financial Savings of more than $25 million
York (2000)
Telefonica de espana (2001) Financial Savings and increases in revenue
30 million euro in the first 10
months
Texas instruments Financial $600 million
Johnson and Johnson Financial $ 500 million
Honey well Financial $1.2 billion
Source: Kwak and Anbari, 2006
2.6. Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma Tools

This section discusses some of the popular tools and techniques applied in quality improvement
methodologies such as those used in six sigma and lean manufacturing. Those widely used in
lean manufacturing include such as Kaizen, Kanban, Brainstorming, Value stream Map (VSM),
5S, Total productivity Maintenance (TPM), Kaizen team, Work cell optimization, Mistake
proofing & prevention (Poka-yoke), Gemb, PDCA, Standardized Work, Takt time, Visual
Control, Once Piece Flow, Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED). Whereas six sigma more
commonly uses statistical tools such as Voice of customer (VOC), Cause and Effect Diagram,
Check Sheet, Design of Experiment (DOE), Defect Per Million Opportunities (DPMO), Failure
Mode and effects analysis (FMEA), Pareto Diagram, Process Flow Chart, DPMO, Control Chart.
2.6.1. Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a team concept and is applied for improving a team’s ability to be creative and
efficient. This is because brainstorming facilitates liberal thinking and an unrestrained exchange
of ideas. While there are several brainstorming techniques, the most popular ones are round robin
(Structured) and free Wheeling (unstructured) (Basu, 2004). These two techniques are presented
as follows:
 Round Robin: This is a structured brainstorming process, and as such participants in a
team are invited to share their individual ideas.
33
 Free Wheeling: This is an unstructured brainstorming process in which all team members
are at liberty to produce and express ideas whenever they see fit.
Brainstorming is an appropriate tool when quantitative or logistic solutions to a problem are
available. The brainstorming tool is designed to stimulate an interaction of ideas that function to
produce an effective combined solution (Geoge et al., 2005). One of the unique benefits of
Brainstorming is its ability to facilitate whole group engagement and participation and therefore
avoids a team environment where exclusion of some members occurs and others are the focal
point (Basu, 2004).
2.6.2. Cause and Effect Diagram
The cause and effect diagram graphically depicts possible causes attributed to specific effects.
Initially introduced by Ishikawa, this graphic depiction was frequently expressed in terms of the
Ishikawa Diagram. More recently, the cause and effect diagram is more popularly referred to as
a fishbone diagram (Basu, 2004). The cause and effect diagram goal is to aid in brainstorming
through helping a team document and follow identified and graphically displayed ideas reflecting
the root causes of a problem (George et al., 2005). The cause and affect diagram can be described
as among the most popular quality improvement tools. The effect depicts a particular problem
and is presented as the diagram (see Figure 2.2). The main structure of the cause and effect
diagram contains six elements that are self-explanatory and are otherwise known as 6Ms. The
6Ms are Manpower, Material, Machine, Method, Measurement, and Environment (Basu, 2004).
There are certain steps in the Cause and Effect process. These steps are described as follows
(George, 2005):
 Choosing the appropriate format that allows for the identification and analysis of cause
and effect.
 Clearly defining and documenting the primary effects arising out of the problem. A box
situation at the right side of the diagram will frequently contain this.
 Once the primary classification of causes are agreed upon, the main fishbone branches
are drawn and create basic diagram on flipchart
 Brainstorming occurs in the categorization of causes where sub-causes stemming from
categorized causes are identified.
 At this point where the sub-causes have been identified, a list compiling the sub-causes
are placed on a flipchart.
 After the team agrees on the top sub-causes and the top six sub-causes, the subcases are
ranked in a way that corresponds with their level of importance.
 Review the diagram
 For each category of causes, the top sub-causes are listed on the diagram. The resulting
sub-causes are known as the Root Causes.
34
 At this point a decision is made on whether to carry out further dispersion analysis or to
collect more data necessary for confirming the Root Causes.
 Finally, solutions together with a plan for improvement are developed.
Figure 2.2: Illustration for Ishikawa Diagram (http://www.vertex42.com)
2.6.3. Check Sheet

The check sheet provides an easy and efficient method for documenting and identifying when
transactions or activities take place. The check sheet is a form or a sheet that permits teams to
document and harvest data that is observed so that patterns can be delineated (see Figure 2.3)
(Basu, 2004). The simple check sheet is utilized for documenting data that does not conform and
activities such as the below:
I. Machine malfunctions,
II. Activities that do not add value
III. Defects or errors observed in a process or a problem.
The check sheet form is prepared in anticipation of the subsequent documenting of data by those
who are involved in or impacted by the problem or process. By taking this approach, patterns in
the data are clearer, factual, and are derived from an easy to uses process that is applicable to
virtually all areas of performance (Basu, 2004).
Telephone interruption
Reason Day
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Frid Total
Wrong llll ll llll llll 11 20
number
Information ll ll ll ll ll 10
request
Boss llll ll llll 11 l lll 19
Total 12 6 10 8 13 49
Figure 2.3: Illustration for check sheet (http://www.asq.org)
35
2.6.4. Control Charts
The control chart, which was initially, introduced by Shewhart and others at Bell Telephone can
reveal the existence of specific causes that interfere with an efficient process (Shewhart, 1925).
The control chart contains a graph, which consists of a horizontal axis for time and a vertical axis
that measures items such as mean or variance/range. Usually, the control chart is a graph
representing a behavior of the processes (see Figure 2.4). It monitors the quality characteristics
variability, in order to assure process stability. We assume here the data follow normal
distribution and the observations are independent.
There are three Control Limits:
 Central Line (CL)
 Lower Control Limit (LCL)
 Upper Control Limit (UCL).
Figure 2.4: Typical control chart (Montgomery, 2009)
The observations above the UCL or below the LCL are signal of a special cause. Where signals
are absent, it is presumed that the process is under control (Montgomery, 2005). The
combination control chart is popularly used such as Xbar-R chart, Xbar-S chart for examining
stability in a process that have developed by Shewhart, (1925). However, there are many types
of control chart: Xbar-R chart, Xbar-S chart, P chart. EWMA (Roberts, 1959), and CUSUM.
The following is demonstrative of the mean and the control limits calculation (Montgomery,
2005; Cohen et al., 2015): The following is demonstrative of the mean and the control limits
calculation:
∑� ̅
�= ��
�̿ =
�
Where,
j= 1, 2,3 …n
�̅� : Average subgroup
36
m: The number of samples
The 3 sigma control limits for �̅ bar chart is presented as:
̅
� ��̅ = �̿ + A2 R
̅
� ��̅ = �̿ − A2 R
�̿: The Estimate average
A2 : only depends on the sample size
�̅ : Range
The R charts are define as following, the control limited is popularly used for examining the
stability of processes in a wide range of industries. The calculation of the mean and control limits
are:
The 3-sigma control limits for R chart is presented as
̅
� �� = D R
̅
� �� = D R
2.6.5. Design of Experiment

Design of experiment (DOE) is a series of techniques for identifying and controlling variables or
boundaries that have the potential to affect the output of a process. The ultimate aim of DOE is
to improve this output. DOE is an advanced technique that is applicable to new-product design,
the manufacturing process of an existing product, or a re-design. This is accomplished via the
following five steps (Taghizadegan, 2006):
A. Define the project goal as well as customer demands both internally and externally.
B. Measure and identify the needs and specifications of the customer (LSL and USL).
C. Analyze the process or product option with the aim of satisfying customer needs.
D. Design the process or product with the aim of satisfying customer needs.
E. Verify the performance of the design and its ability to satisfy customer needs.
2.6.6. FMEA
Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a systematic and analytical quality planning
technique applied at the product, process, and service stages to evaluate possible errors or
missteps and thereby help to identify faulty processes. (Taghizadegan, 2006). The goal is to
37
Figure 2.6: Illustration process flow chart (http://www.breezetree.com/flow-charts/flowchart.htm)
2.6.9. Value stream Map
The value stream map shows the necessary transactions and events that are involved in the
process that takes a product from the supplier to the customer/end user via design, construction,
assembly, and delivery, as shown in Figure 2.8. As the value stream map goes through this
process, it is able to differentiate between value-added transactions and non-value-added
transactions and activities (Taghizadegan, 2006). In this regard, a value-added activity is a part
of the process that is necessary for satisfying customer demands; in other words, it is an activity
in the process by which raw material or information is transformed for meeting customer
requirements. A non-value-added activity or transaction is a part of the process that requires
resources and time but does not add any value or improvement for the customer. The following
are four essential steps in value-added analysis (Taghizadegan, 2006):
I. Construct a process flowchart.
II. Detect all the assignments that add value for the customer, such as reasonable prices,
minimal or zero flaws, and punctual delivery.
III. Detect all non-value-added activities such as inspection, moving, reworking inspection,
moving, and reworking.
IV. Select those activities that are vital for continuation of the process and exclude those that
do not add value.
39
Figure 2.7: Illustration Value stream Mapping (http://www.conceptdraw.com)
2.6.10. 5S system
The 5S system is implemented within companies to enhance their efficiency and productivity
(Taghizadegan, 2006).
A. S1= Sort (Seiri)
At the sort phase, items and activities are sorted out and only what is needed is retained and those
that are not needed are eliminated.
B. S2: Set in order (Seiton)
Organize (what, where, and how).
At the organize phase, those items or activities that are retained once sorting has been
accomplished are stored efficiently and effectively.
C. S3: Shine (Seiso)
Following the sort and organize phases, the cleaning up takes place.
What to clean
Those areas that are designated for cleaning are listed.
40
2.6.13. Voice of customer
The objective of voice of customer (VOC) is to identify specific customer opinions or points of
view on service issues, and performance indicators and expectations (George et al., 2005), The
Table 2.5 shows the methods for collecting VOC.
Table 2.5 Voice of customer
Type of Choose if the following is desired
contact
Unique perspective
Face-to-face
Senior-level participation
interview
Ability to pursue unexpected lines of questioning
In-depth understanding of customers
Information from customers with similar product and service needs
Focus group
Mid- to lower-level participation
Information from customers who are widely dispersed geographically
Telephone
Information on basic or simple issues
interview
A large amount of data at a low cost
Survey Quantifiable and statistically meaningful responses from many customers
Confirmation of theories developed based on other forms of customer contact
Source: George et al., 2005
2.6.14. Work cell optimization
The work cell functions in reducing the time necessary for that completion of an activity or
activities the removal of scenarios that is lying to errors. Thus the work cell identifies and
removes or reduces inefficiencies including equipment and people, several benefit by performed
cell layout designed such as easy moving, one piece flow processing (George et al., 2005).
2.6.15. Mistake proofing & prevention
Mistake prevention involves aborting errors so that they do not happen. Mistake proofing is
designed to ensure that errors are not transferred from one phase to another; it doesn’t need or
require human assistance (George et al., 2005):
Two-step mistake-proofing system:
 “A caution system in which the process either shuts down or cautions when there is an
error”.
 “Process stop when irregularity is detected”
2.6.16. Standardized Work
Standardized work involves identifying and implementing the best practices and activities for the
same process each time. However, standardized work is reviewed and updated constantly through
documentation and training. This takes place by observing operations and identifying sources of
waste for continuous improvement. Standard work could be the first step for identifying waste
sources by observing or analyzing how the operators are carrying out standard work in an
42
essentially a pull system that calls upon the upstream workstation to only produce that which is
necessary for downstream demands (Wilson, 2010).
Figure 2.8: Illustrate Kanban card (http://www.elcom.fr/lean)
2.6.21. Visual Control
Visual control enable a process to manage itself, with clear indications being provided of
opportunities available in the workplace. Visual control is achieved by simple signals providing
immediate understanding of the situation in the factory (Gunasekaran and Lyu, 1997). The
photograph illustrates visual control (see Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.9: Illustrate visual card (http://torquemanagement.org)
2.6.22. Once Piece Flow
One piece flow is a sequence of products or activities considered one item at a time, as shown in
Figure 2.11. The focus is on the product or the activity, as opposed to the actions of waiting,
moving, and storing. Thus, one-piece flow techniques have a short turnover time and are
consistent with pull systems (Li and Rong, 2009).
Figure 2.10: Illustrate of practicing one piece flow (http://www.lean.org)
2.6.23. Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED)
SMED (single-minute exchange of die) is a lean manufacturing technique for reducing waste and
cost. It relies on a rapid and efficient way of converting a manufacturing process from running
44
the current product to running the next one (Wang, 2011). Thus, SMED is also known as quick
changeover (QCO), since it increases changeover times, thereby facilitating production at a lower
cost. All changeovers and startups should take less than 10 minutes (Wang, 2011). Its conduct
with more than one employee is as shown in Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.11: Illustrate SMED (http://www.manufacturainteligente.com)
2.7. Lean Manufacturing Vs. Six Sigma
A review of the literature reveals that from a philosophical perspective, lean and six sigma are
different. Whereas six sigma focuses on identifying and removing variations and defects, lean
manufacturing is focused on reducing waste. Both systems contemplate the creation of quality
and value, respectively, while saving cost. Lean manufacturing and six sigma methodologies are
aimed at continuously improving quality to the satisfaction of the end customer. An overview of
the strengths of each of these methodologies is provided in Table 2.6. There are some
fundamental differences in how six sigma and lean manufacturing are implemented and operated.
In order to implement six sigma, the whole organization must be subjected to continuous
adjustments as new problems are identified and new solutions implemented. This occurs on a
project-by-project basis. An organization must create four different levels for a belt system to
successfully implement six sigma (Taghizadegan, 2006). The infrastructures for the six sigma
methodology are Champion, Master Black Belt (MBB), Black Belt (BB), and Green Belt (GB)
or project leader (George, 2002). In contrast, lean manufacturing does not involve an
organization’s infrastructure. Instead, leadership is the most critical success factor for successful
implementation of this methodology (Achanga et al., 2006). Moreover, lean manufacturing
includes techniques of Kaizen, which are absent from the six sigma approach. Kaizen refers to
the culture of whole-team involvement and thus employee empowerment (Mano et al., 2014).
While six sigma can reduce variations and defects and improve efficiency, it does not by itself
reduce waste or improve cost (Gamal Aboelmaged, 2010). Moreover, while six sigma uses a
number of statistical tools, it does not provide a strategy for applying these to a system (Goerge,
2002).
45
Table 2.6 Differences between Lean and Six Sigma
Issue Six sigma Lean
Focus on customer value stream No Yes
Focus on creating a visual workplace No Yes
Creation of a standard work sheet No Yes
Attack on WIP-Inventory No Yes
Focus in good housing keeping No Yes
Process control and monitoring Yes No
Focus on reduction of variation and achieving Yes No
uniform process output
Detailed focus on the application of statistical Yes No
tools and techniques
Employment of a structured, rigorous and Yes No
well planned problem-solving methodology
Attack on 7 wastes No Yes
Source: Antony, 2003
Lean manufacturing does not take account of the voice of the customer and design of experiment.
On the other hand, six sigma does not speed up processes. In addition, whereas lean
manufacturing focuses on the entire system, six sigma focuses too narrowly on one project at a
time (Sibley and Swanger, 2012), which is counterproductive from the point of view of reducing
waste. Then there is the obvious problem with lean manufacturing of focusing too narrowly on
waste and ignoring the root cause of problems that arise, which is more suitably dealt with by six
sigma. The overall effects of an integration of lean manufacturing and six sigma are captured by
the model created by Korde and Mishra (2003) (see Figure 2.11).
Figure 2.12: Diagram demonstrated the similarities between lean and six sigma
2.7.1. Implementation of Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma in Isolation
There are definite concerns that implementing lean manufacturing without implementing six
46
sigma as well can lead to a number of problems. First, management might not select the best
projects on which to focus, and this could result in either sub-optimizing the system or
complicating it (Bryefogle, 1999). In addition, lean manufacturing does not put a process under
statistical control (George, 2002). On the other hand, six sigma does not speed up a process.
Therefore, firms that have implemented six sigma alone find that they have not made
improvements in their lead time, but only slight improvements in work in progress (George,
2003). Moreover, George (2002) found that a number of companies that implemented lean
manufacturing without six sigma enjoyed only partial improvements in quality of service and
goods, and then only in some areas of the business. George (2002) also noted that implementing
lean manufacturing without six sigma puts the organization in a position where a problem cannot
be treated statistically to allow more efficient control.
Implementation of six sigma without lean manufacturing is also problematic. To begin with, six
sigma does not specifically direct attention to lead time and does not have a technique for
addressing flow, since its focus is on variations and defects (George, 2002). As Sibley and
Swanger (2012) point out, while six sigma strives for perfection, this alone could lead to delays
in production. However, lean manufacturing needs to be integrated with six sigma, and, at the
same time, six sigma needs to be integrated with lean manufacturing, as explained in Table 2.7,
in order to identify non-value-added waste, improve processing speed and cycle time, and
provide rapid action. This allows six sigma to work well when waste has been eliminated.
Combining lean manufacturing and six sigma allows both elimination of waste and the perfection
philosophy of six sigma to be put into practice (Salah et al., 2010).
Table 2.7 Lean and Six Sigma needs each other

Six Sigma Needs lean Lean Needs six sigma
 Through lean manufacturing, wastes  Reduce variation
that are on no value addition are  Six Sigma has tools that identify critical
identified. aspects to quality such as capturing data
 Lean has tools that help to increase through VOC and DMAIC.
processing speed to improve cycle  Six Sigma expresses, in details the
time such as 7 Muda, TPM, 5S etc. culture and infrastructure system that is
 Lean embraces Kaizen, which is a needed to achieve a sustainable result.
method for rapid action.
 Lean enables Six Sigma to work
efficiently by eliminating waste.
Source: George, 2003
In summary, it can be concluded that while lean manufacturing and six sigma have different theoretical
bases, both aim to improve performance outcomes: improved value and reduced waste and costs. Lean
theory is based on reducing waste, whereas six sigma focuses on reducing variations. In their application,
lean manufacturing seeks to identifying value, whereas six sigma seeks to identify problems. Thus,
whereas lean manufacturing focuses on flow, six sigma focuses on problems. Lean manufacturing
proceeds on the assumption that if waste is reduced, value is created, whereas six sigma proceeds on the
assumption that if variation is eliminated, the risk of problems is reduced. However, both philosophies
expect to improve productivity and efficiency. This is demonstrated by a table of comparisons between
the theories, methodologies and applications of lean manufacturing and six sigma as devised by Nave
(2002) (see Table 2.8).
47
Table 2.8 Comparisons between lean and six-sigma methodology
Methodology Lean Six sigma
Theory Reduce waste Reduce variation
Application Identify value Define
Identify value stream Measure
Flow Analysis
Pull Improve
Perfection Control
Focus Flow focused Problem focused
Assumption Waste removal will improve business Problem exists system output
performance. improve if variation in all process is
Many small improvement are better than reduced
system analysis
Primary effect Reduce flow time Uniform process flow
Secondary effect Less variation Less waste
Uniform output Fast throughput
Less inventory Less inventory
Variation metric New accounting system
Improve quality Flow metrics
Improve quality
Source: Nave, 2002
Nave (2002), suggest that if an organization wants to rely on studies with analytical value, as
well as the link between data and analysis, then six sigma is a good fit for the organization. If the
organization is more determined to see immediate changes and results then a lean philosophy is
best. However, a lean six sigma methodology is ideal for cutting cost, improving productivity
and efficiency with improved quality (George, 2002; Breyfogle, 1999; Sorqvist, 2009).
2.7.2. Begin implementation of Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma
According to (Breyfogle, 1999; George, 2002 Sorqvist, 2009) the emphasis in the
implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma is on obtaining simultaneously rapid and
dramatic improvements. In integrating lean manufacturing with six sigma, some firms are unclear
on how these should be implemented, because they put one methodology on top of the other.
However, the structures and packages of lean manufacturing and six sigma are too different to
make this approach successful in practice. On the other hand, there is proof that SMEs have
successfully implemented lean manufacturing before six sigma (Kumar and Antony, 2009).
Conversely, one company has implemented six sigma before lean, also with success (Snee,
2010).
SME may not be able to implement both methods simultaneously. Many authors have advocated
such simultaneous implementation because of the complementary nature of the two
methodologies, but they have not taken into consideration the capability of an organization to do
this. SMEs have fewer resources in terms of expert knowledge and therefore may find it difficult
to implement lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously. There are a few SMEs that have
done so, but such integrated implementation is not widespread (Antony, 2008). Consequently,
any organization that wishes to improve quality but does not have the capacity for simultaneous
implementation and needs to choose between lean manufacturing or six sigma must decide which
method is better suited to their particular enterprise. The choice of method depends on the
capability of the enterprise to apply the appropriate success factors. Therefore, we shall try to
48
identify the appropriate method, depending on the capability of an organization to apply the
success factors for lean manufacturing or six sigma or both (see Chapter 4, Section 6, Success
factors for more details)
2.7.3. Integrating Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma
The integration of six sigma with lean manufacturing allows six sigma to reduce variation and
increases the ability of a process to identify critical quality factors so that data can be captured
through the voice of the customer (VOC). Six sigma also deals with the culture and infrastructure
required by a system to achieve and sustain better results. Thus, six sigma and lean manufacturing
are complementary and both are important in improving shareholder value. The two
methodologies enable an organization to achieve maximum improvement by addressing the root
causes of poor process performance (Snee, 2010). Others have also suggested that both six sigma
and lean manufacturing should be implemented simultaneously in SMEs (Khurshid et al., 2012).
According to George (2002), rapid and dramatic improvements have been achieved by
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously. Such integrated methodologies
result in a new way of working that is more effective than when either methodology is
implemented on its own. If lean manufacture and six sigma are not implemented simultaneously,
or one is superimposed on the other, there is less improvement in terms of process speed, value
added, reduced cycle time, and inventory (Sorqvist, 2009). Lean six sigma, i.e., the combination
of lean manufacturing and six sigma, seeks to increase shareholder value by ensuring high
quality, speed, and customer satisfaction. The combined implementation can produce more
efficient and effective outcomes when there is an emphasis on human beings or organizational
culture as opposed to a single focus on training staff in techniques and tools (Dahlgaard and
Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). Combining lean manufacturing and six sigma has resulted in
improvements in product innovation, process reforms, and a significant increase in revenue
(Byrne et al., 2007; Snee, 2010; Delgado et al., 2013). There is also a growing trend toward
combining lean manufacturing and six sigma, as well as combining individual components of
these two methodologies.
2.8. Key Success factors for lean manufacturing versus six sigma
Top management commitment and support is considered as the critical success factor of
implementing either lean (Näslund, 2008; Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009), or six sigma (Antony
and Banuelas, 2002; Näslund, 2008; Chakrabarty, 2009). Cultural change in employees
attitudes toward quality and the influencing as well as restructuring of organizations are among
the importance of the involvement of top management in the implementation of the six sigma
(Henderson and Evans, 2000). The commitment made by the managers helps the employees to
gain an understanding of the projects associated with lean (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009).
Linking either six sigma or lean to suppliers. The core reason behind the successful incorporation
of the suppliers within six sigma is the ability of the suppliers in six sigma to gather support from
topmost managerial levels in the supplier firms. Under the philosophy of six sigma, the most
49
helpful way to lessen variability amongst the suppliers is to have lesser suppliers, who have high
levels of sigma performance abilities (Coronado and Antony, 2002). Lean also applies along
the company’s supply chain network, consequently, there is waste reduction, as well as, increased
organizational and supply chain communication (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009). There is an
utmost need to correlate lean with the suppliers, since it is regarded as a critical success factor
(Keller et al., 1991). It is necessary to decrease costs and wastages so as to ensure the success of
lean manufacturing. This can be achieved by creating a relation amongst the suppliers and the
manufacturers (Wang, 2009).
Linking either six sigma or lean to customers. During the process of implementing six sigma,
there is an utmost need to consider the customers in the process, as they are regarded as one of
the key players affecting the growth of organizations. Recognition of factor such as critical to
quality (CTQ) is essential to link six sigma with the customers (Antony and Banuelas, 2002;
Coronado and Antony, 2002). In the process of lean manufacturing, customers are the ones who
determine the value stream. Hence, the company must be able to recognize the requirements of
the customers and must arrange the activities that would make the products available to customers
(Wilson, 2010; Čiarnienė and Vienažindienė, 2012).
Linking either six sigma (Henderson and Evans, 2000; Coronado and Antony, 2002; Wyper
and Harrison, 2000), or lean (Shah and Ward, 2003), to human resources is necessary to ensure
that the human resources employed in an organization work collectively towards the achievement
of organizational goals. It is essential to link both methods to human resources in order to
facilitate implementation, facilitate culture change, sustain the result, and achieve a respectable
behavior from the employees and concerned human resources associated with the organization.
Education and training are considered as one of success factors within six sigma (Henderson
and Evans, 2000; Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Näslund, 2008; Brun, 2011). Six sigma method
own structure of training such as master black belt, black belts, and green belt that cooperative
to make effective implementation of supporting to increase company performance (George,
2003). It is requiring training workers the principles of lean as well to facilitate the
implementation of lean (Pingyu and Yu, 2010). Education and Training are also considered as
one of the success factors for lean method (Näslund, 2008, Rose et al., 2014). In order to ensure
that the employees are able to manage and implement either lean or six sigma, in an appropriate
manner, it is necessary that they receive quality training, and possess essential education
qualifications to carry out the process of implementation and to increase their expertise and learn
to make decisions using their own understanding.
Skills and expertise possessed by the employees are considered critical success factors for lean
manufacturing and six sigma (Näslund, 2008). The level of skills and competencies amongst the
employees in an organization, determines the organizational ability to incorporate six sigma. Six
sigma techniques have a wider application and required specific skills, creativity and training.
There exists a wider scope and application of six sigma; hence, there it requires particular set of
skills, training as well as creativity (Antony, 2006; Gamal Aboelmaged, 2010). The higher the
level of skills and competencies possessed by employees concerned with implementation of six
50
sigma, the higher are the chances of success (George, 2003). Success of lean as well, is dependent
upon the level of problem solving skills possessed by employees. In addition, skills and
competencies acquired by the employees would help in generation of a plan regarding
improvement in process and reduction of wastes (Bhasin and Burcher, 2006; Scherrer-Rathje
et al., 2009; Wilson, 2010). Human skills and expertise are very important for the success of
lean manufacturing (Achanga et al., 2006).
Understanding the tools and techniques is also considered as one of the success factors within
six sigma (Coronado and Antony 2002; Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Näslund, 2008), or lean
(Näslund, 2008; Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009; Wilson, 2010). It is necessary to ensure that the
tools and techniques associated with lean or six sigma are understood in a comprehensive
manner. In addition, the techniques of six sigma are supported in the elimination of the defect
related to quality and promote improvement of performance. Furthermore, six sigma is
considered to be occupying a specific responsibility in the organization, which is based on a
narrow approach (Snee, 2010). Six sigma incorporates a wider range of tools and techniques
comprising DMAIC, SPC, process capability analysis and root cause analysis among others. On
the other hand, lean aims to eliminate the wastage that include various tools such as value stream
analysis, 5S, total productive maintenance and kaizen among others that support to add value. In
our study, we made a modification to this factor to be “understand the tools and techniques within
method to white-collar worker and blue collar worker” for lean manufacturing and six sigma
methods, in order to identify whether there are a different levels of importance between lean
manufacturing and six sigma across understanding the tools and technique.
The communication process can be improved by establishing a mechanism that can be employed
in helping the top management to get feedback from their employees, to ensure that employees
accept change and to overcome resistance. Communication among the team members concerned
with implementation of either six sigma (Coronado and Antony, 2002), or lean (Bhasin and
Burcher, 2006; Manotas Duque and Rivera Cadavid, 2007; Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009) is
vital as proper communication significantly contributes towards the achievement of
organizational success. Studies by Flynn et al., (1994), made it clear that open communication
with customers help in monitoring the customers’ requirements as well as in helping to identify
the necessary improvements if the customers’ requirements are not being met.
Cultural change plays a major role in determining the success rate of implementing six sigma
(Coronado and Antony, 2002; Antony et al., 2005, Kwak and Anbari, 2006) or lean
(Achanga et al., 2006; Bhasin and Burcher, 2006; Wilson, 2010). Culture change requires
supporting from the upper level management for providing a guideline to employees. Employees
working in an organization need to possess a positive attitude towards solving problems and
reducing time to ensure that the defect and wastes are eliminated.
Linking either six sigma (Coronado and Antony 2002; Brun, 2011), or lean (Bhasin and
Burcher, 2006; Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009), to business strategy is potential reason why either
lean or six sigma need to be incorporated into business strategy. It allows the organization to
ensure that the business operations are efficiently conducted and are able to meet and surpass
51
customer requirements.
According to Huq (2010) there are various impacts of employee involvement such as decrease
in ambiguity in the role of the worker, empowerment of the worker, as well as elimination of
cultural resistance. Employee involvement is very important factors for effective implementation
of six sigma (Hahn et al., 2000; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005), as well as lean manufacturing
(Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009; Hibadullah et al., 2014; Rose, 2014), there is a need to involve
the employees in the process of implementing lean, since it plays a crucial role in the
determination of success.
There is an essential to reward the employees who are associated with implementation of lean as
well as six sigma to ensure that the organization is able to effectively implement lean (Åhlström,
1998; Scherrer-Rathjeet al., 2009), or six sigma (Ho et al., 2008). Reward may encourage the
employees in the organization to participate in projects that lead to improve quality and sustain
results.
Consultant participation is important factor that support to the development of organizational

goals and facilitates the implementation of lean (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009). As well for six
sigma (Wiklundand and Wiklund, 2002). Consultant participation is known to support the
activities, and aid the implementation lean and six sigma, which bring about continuous
improvement.
Antony and Banuelas (2002), reported that six sigma, which is a project driven methodology,
requires that each team member should be skilled in project management so as to meet deadlines
as the project progress. Various studies had highlighted project management skills as success
factors in the implementation of six sigma (Coronado and Antony, 2002; Kwak and Anbari,
2006; Brun, 2011). Project management skills among the employees concerned with the
implementation of Lean is necessary in ensuring that wastages in the process of implementation
are minimized. Therefore, project management skills has been added as a success factor for lean
manufacturing, also due to the desire to compare between lean and six sigma in terms of success
factors.
The factors that follow were not compared between lean manufacturing and six sigma due to the
fact that each of the methods have characteristics unique to either lean or six sigma but not both.
For instance, six sigma has belt system whereas lean manufacturing does not. Belt system may
be considered as a key success factor for the six sigma implementation, and these include belt
categories such as green belt, black belt, master black belt and champion. The belt mechanism
enables the organization in the implementation of the six sigma for the achievement of success
and all the belt mechanism have the responsibility of the development of six sigma within the
organization (George, 2003; Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Taghizadegan, 2006). On the other
hand, leadership is considered as a major success factor in the implementation of lean (Dora et
al., 2013). Success of lean manufacturing largely depends upon the leadership qualities possessed
who train the employees regarding implementation of lean by employees implementing lean.
Leader works, as professionals in the organization must take necessary steps to ensure that lean
52
program is incorporated within an organization in achieve progress and success lean
implementation (Dombrowskia and Mielkea, 2013).
Kaizen team is one of the lean technique which an important factor that assists in the
enhancement of performance, which consequently affect the work in the improvement of lean
projects rapidly with the organizations (Radharamanan et al., 1996; Scherrer-Rathje et al.,
2009, Rahani and al-Ashraf, 2012).
Project prioritization and selection, reviews and tracking selection of an appropriate project with
the purpose of implementing six sigma can be considered as an important factor that would
ensure early success for the organization (Antony, 2004). Selection of appropriate six sigma
project depends on a number of criteria. These can be considered as an assessment of the voice
of customers (VOC), Defect per Million Opportunity (DPMO), and cost of poor quality, among
others (Coronado and Antony, 2002; Gamal Aboelmaged, 2010).
By monitoring the progress and evaluation of the performance, an assessment of the lean progress
would ensure that the implementation of lean is successful (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009;
Pingyu and Yu, 2010). Furthermore, monitoring of the progress would enable the organization
to ensure that the project is implemented on a timely basis and in a sequential manner to indicate
progress as well as to assess the effectiveness of the different changes (Åhlström, 1998;
Manotas Duque and Rivera Cadavid, 2007; Pingyu and Yu, 2010). Continuous monitoring
and evaluation leads to understanding the current status and ensures that there is effective
implementation of lean. Therefore, there should be evaluation of scheduling, material handling,
employees, as well as, work processes.
There are some vital differences between lean manufacturing and six sigma. It therefore for
optimal results, organization that desires to adopt either lean manufacturing or six sigma or both
methods that need to set strategy and improve organizational culture, understanding the tools and
train employees to increase their knowledge. Since lean manufacturing and six sigma includes
various tools and techniques supportive of the elimination of waste and defect such as control
chart, Value Stream Map, Regression analysis, 5S, Total Productive Maintenance and Kaizen,
Kanban, however, methodologies such as lean manufacturing, six sigma or lean six sigma are
among the most popularly used methodologies for facilitating a firm continuous improvement.
These methodologies are implemented through a variety of techniques or tools (Basu, 2009).
Therefore, tools and techniques are prescribed methods requiring the use of particular skills
necessary for improving applicable transactions or processes in areas such as input, output and
outcomes.
2.9. Conclusion
Lean manufacturing and six sigma are powerful methodologies, commonly used as quality
improvement methods. There have been many publications describing the positive
implementation of lean manufacturing in various industries. Based on the results in the literature,
53
it appears that the weaknesses of one approach are compensated by the strengths of the other. It
therefore follows that, for optimal results, organizations could consider integrating lean
manufacturing and six sigma to reduce waste and variation, improve value and achieve greater
customer satisfaction and continuous improvement. In addition, the management of an
organization that wants to adopt either lean manufacturing or six sigma should improve its
organizational culture, allow workers to develop themselves, and encourage employees to
increase their expertise and learn to make decisions through their own understanding. They
should also prioritize customer focus and ensure that they align the organization on all levels.
However, there is not much documented evidence about the implementation of lean
manufacturing or six sigma in French industry. Therefore, this study investigates the status of
implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma. The results of the research are provided in
the next chapter, which addresses the effectiveness of lean manufacturing and six sigma, the
nature of the particular tools that are commonly used within French industry, and the success
factors for implementing the two approaches.
54
CHAPTER 3.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
55
3. Research Methodology
In this chapter, we present the philosophical basis of the research methodology. The factors that
allow assessment of companies’ performance and their successful implementation of lean
manufacturing and six sigma are described. This chapter also demonstrates that lean
manufacturing and six sigma have been implemented in many ways. Bibliographic investigation
shows there has been limited scientific research focusing on the implementation of lean
manufacturing and six sigma within French industry. Therefore, this study aims to reveal which
practices are relevant to such implementation. Many researchers have conducted survey
questionnaires, which is an important technique for collecting data to provide a statistical
validation of research results (Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Forza, 2002). The following
sections describe the procedure according to which the study was performed, including research
design, sampling technique, data collection, and reliability test analysis.
3.1. Research Design
The aims of this research is to evaluate the performance of lean manufacturing and six sigma
implementation. This research has used the survey to collect the view of expertise in lean
manufacturing and six sigma. We build 98 items to evaluate the situation of lean manufacturing
and six sigma implementation (see Appendix). The research instrument used in this research was
an online survey administered through Google survey. The first instrument contain general
profile of the organization, including type of industry (service industry, electronics industry,
automobile industry, health industry, transportation, and other industry), Age of companies (less
than 5 years, between 5 and 10 years, between 10 and 15 years and more), respondent’s positions
(project leader, quality manager, operation manager, general management, consultant, CEO),
numbers of employees (from 0 to 9 employees, from 10 to 49, from 50 to 249, and from 250 and
more), duration for implementing the method (less than 3 years, between 3 and 6 years, Between
6 and 9 years, and 9 years and more). Additionally, this involved the investigation of the
implementation of either lean manufacturing or six sigma, and whether methodologies lean
manufacturing, six sigma implemented at the same time with the reasons for doing so. Moreover,
the belts systems were investigated. The second instrument of the data collection aim to identify
the impacts of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation by 12. Table 3.1 shows the
character questionnaire of each variable related to main variable. The questionnaire was designed
as a Likert scale as follows: 1 representing strongly disagree; 2 representing disagree; 3
representing neutral; 4 representing agree; and five representing strongly agree. A higher score
for benefit was 5, and therefore implied stronger agreement of the respondents, and a lower score
for benefit was 1 implying stronger disagreement. The third instrument demonstrate the tools and
techniques, each item was measured using a five point Likert scale. Relative scales ranged from
1= no implementation, 2= few implementation, 3=some implementation, 4= wide
implementation, 5 = complete implementation. The fourth instrument shows the situation of the
practices levels of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation. The questionnaire was
designed as a Likert-type as follows: 1=Not implemented to any department, 2= Implemented in
few department, 3= Implemented in some department, 4= Implemented all departments, 5=
implemented in all departments including supplier.
56
Table 3.1 Measure companies performance
objective Dimension taken into account The items presented in the questionnaire
Increase profit
Financial performance Reduce cost
Improve quality, improve productivity,
Reduces Lead-time,
Evaluate the Operation performance Reduces variation, Customer satisfaction,
Decreases Inventory,
performance
Creates safety environment
Reduces turnover rate,
Innovation performance Involves employees,
Suggestions from the employees
The fifth instrument shows the situation of the success levels of implementation lean
manufacturing and six sigma are investigated. The questionnaire was designed as follows: 1=Not
successful, 2= A slight successful, 3= Successful, 4= Very successful, 5= Totally successful. The
final instrument was designed to determine success factors of lean manufacturing and six sigma
separately. The sixth of the data collection was the comparison of implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma methods across success factors. Each of these factors were
measured within a five-point Likert scale to indicate the important factors of implementing each
method lean manufacturing and six sigma. Respondents had the following five choices for
answering of each success factors follows; 1=Unimportant, 2=Slightly important, 3=Important,
4=Very important, 5=Critical. Critical was coded to be equal to 5 points, whereas unimportant
was coded to 1 point. Participants were asked additional open question to add any other success
factors that they believe is (are) very important to the successful implementation either for lean
manufacturing or six sigma.
3.2. Reliability test
Pilot studies were conducted involving two academics and two experts in lean manufacturing
and six sigma in order to test the validity of the research model. The two experts are working as
a continuous improvement manager and an expert manager. Based on the experts’ feedbacks
from the pilot study, one question was added to find out whether lean manufacturing and six
sigma were implemented simultaneously or not, and another item was added with regard to
certification such as OHSAS 1800. A total of 33 valid questionnaires were received from
companies between July 2014 and February 2015, a response rate of 19%.
3.3. Sampling Technique
By using survey, it means that data will be collected from informants who represent a significant
portion of a certain population, whereby survey forms distributed to expert of lean manufacturing
and six sigma. The respondents were also informed of the form in the first page where is
explained the purpose of the study and asked the respondents to complete to questionnaire via
the linked online survey. Contact was initially made via email through which the survey was sent
57
to 173 enterprises engaged in different types of industries in France. A total of 173 experts were
identified from the list provided by the department of engineering (ISTIA1) that specialist on
quality and excellence industrial. The survey was released online and was written in two
languages, English and French. The researcher selected expertise that they familiar and have a
good knowledge for lean manufacturing and six sigma. The form explained the purpose of the
study and asked the respondents that should have knowledge on lean manufacturing and six
sigma. The initial email was sent to 173 enterprises engaged in different type of industries in
France. From the emails, twenty emails were not delivered successfully because the email
addresses were not valid. Five companies did not participate in answering the questionnaire
because they had not implemented either lean manufacturing or six sigma methodologies within
their organization. Other experts were in vacation. Follow-up email was sent one month and half
later to remind the respondents who had not responded yet. Additionally, we attend a seminar
that was organized by an organization, in order to meet experts in domain lean manufacturing
and six sigma methodologies. However, an overall thirty-three valid questionnaires had been
received from companies between July, 2014 to February, 2015 and the response rate was 19%.
3.3.1 Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used in analyzing and interpreting the survey results. Descriptive
statistics are referred to as a set of procedures used to summarize and describe the important
characteristics of a set of measurement (Mendenhall et al., 2011). Several types of statistical
analysis were conducted in this research to determine the results collected from the French
industries. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to test the internal reliability, test the normality,
Binomial test, Spearman correlation coefficients, Mann-Whitney test, Chi-Square test were used
for ordinal and categorical analyses (contingency), Kruskal Wallis One Way ANOVA test, and
a regression analysis, Wilcoxon signed ranks tes and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Statistical
package for the social sciences version 20, and super decision software were used to calculate
and analyze the results.
3.4. Testing the reliability
The internal consistency and reliability for all variables in the survey (performance outcome
variables, tools and techniques, and success factors for implementing lean manufacturing and six
sigma) were tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. This coefficient tests the internal
reliability and consistency of a research instrument, with a minimum value of 0.60 indicating
sufficient reliability (Nunnally, 1978).
A. The analysis of all 12 variables from the questionnaire that define the impact of lean
manufacturing and six sigma implementation gave a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.902.
1 ISTIA department is working with many companies that practical qualities approach.
58
Table 3.2 Reliability for the impact of lean manufacturing and six sigma
Benefits Cronbach's Alpha
Increase profit .896
Improve quality .897
Reduces variation .909
Reduces cost .900
Improves productivity .890
Reduces Lead-time .890
Increases suggestions from the employees .891
Involves employees .885
Increase Customer satisfaction .889
Decreases Inventory .898
Reduce turnover rate .891
Creates safety environment .891
Based on Table 3.2, we can observe the scale measuring the increase in profit (0.896), improve
quality (0.897), Reduce variation (0.909), reduce cost (0.900, improve productivity (0.890),
reduce lead time (0.890), suggestion from the employees (0.891), involve employees (0.885),
Customer satisfied (0.889), decrease inventory (0.898), reduce turnover rate (0.891), safety
environment (0.891). Cronbach’s alpha results indicate the presence of a high internal
consistency of the scales. Therefore, the variable set met the reliability requirements of the
analysis.
B. The analysis of all 27 variables for application of lean manufacturing and six sigma gave a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87
Table 3.3 Reliability for lean manufacturing and six sigma tools
Tools Cronbach's Tools Cronbach's
Alpha Alpha
5S .873 Kanban .867
Kaizen team .871 Check sheet .872
Standardized Work .871 Pareto chart .877
TPM .869 Design of Experiment .868
Takt time .868 Control chart .870
Once piece flow .865 Cause and effect diagram .874
SMED .872 Flow chart .869
Cellular lay-out .873 Voice of Customer .872
Poka-yoke .866 Failure Mode and Effect .872
Analysis FMEA
Visual Control .872 Defects per million .869
opportunities
Gemba .867 DMAIC .885
Brainstorming .874 Regression analysis .874
Value Stream Mapping .868 Regression analysis .867
PDCA .876
As shown in Table 3.3, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranges from 0.865 to 0.873. Thus, the
variables met the reliability requirements of the analysis.
59
C. The analysis of all the variables from the questionnaire that defined the success of lean
manufacturing gave a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.85. The corresponding analysis for six
sigma gave a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.95.
Table 3.4 Reliability for Success factors Lean manufacturing and six sigma
Success factors for lean Cronbach's Success factors for six sigma Cronbach's
Alpha Alpha
Top Management commitment .851 Top Management commitment and .957
and support support
Involvement of employees .848 Linking six sigma to customers .956
Linking lean method to suppliers .859 Involvement of employees .955
Education and training .849 Linking six sigma method to suppliers .959
Communication .854 Education and training .953
Linking lean Method to the .844 Communication .953
business strategy
Consultant participation .875 Linking six sigma Method to the .955
business strategy
Understanding the tools and .837 Consultant participation .961
techniques within lean method to
the employees that perform job in
shop floor
Understanding the tools and .833 Understanding the tools and techniques .954
techniques within lean to the within six sigma to the employees that
employees that perform job in an perform job in shop floor
office
Cultural change .829 Understanding the tools and techniques .955
within six sigma to the employees that
perform job in an office
Monitoring and evaluation of .840 Cultural change .954
performance
Skills and expertise .845 Project prioritization and selection, .953
reviews and tracking
Leadership .833 Skills and expertise .957
Kaizen team .851 Belt system .959
Reward system .839 Linking Six Sigma to human resources .955
Linking lean to customers .846 Reward system .959
Linking lean to human resources .833 Project Management skills .954
Project Management skills .839
These indicated the strong reliability data collected from the survey, indicating that the variable
met the reliability and validity requirements of the analysis. This further indicated that the results
were acceptable.
3.5. Testing the Normality
The purpose of test the normality is to define either the data follow a normal distribution or not,
consequently that guide us to determine of using the correct statistical tests: Parametric test or
Non Parametric test. Two tests were conducted, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test
for the assessment of normality. Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test to
determine the normality, consequently if p-value is less than 0.05, the normality assumption, can
be rejected and if p-value is greater than 0.05, there is evidence to accept the normality
60
assumption. However, we test the normality for the effective of lean manufacturing and six
sigma, tools, success factors as shows below:
A. Testing the normality for the entire variable measuring the effective of lean manufacturing
and six sigma implementation. The hypotheses for test of normality are shown below:
H0: The variables (impact of lean manufacturing and six sigma) does not follow normal
distribution
Ha: The variables (impact of lean manufacturing and six sigma) does follow normal
distribution
The decision would be:
Ha is accepted If Sig > α (follow normal distribution)

Ha is rejected If Sig < α (Not follow normal distribution).
Table. 3.5 Test of normality for impact of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma
Impact Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Sig. Sig.
Increase profit .000 .000
Improve quality .000 .000
Reduces variation .000 .000
Reduces cost .000 .000
Improves productivity .000 .000
Reduces Lead-time .000 .000
Increases suggestions from the employees .000 .000
Involves employees .000 .000
Increase Customer satisfaction .000 .000
Decreases Inventory .000 .000
Reduce turnover rate .000 .000
Creates safety environment .000 .000
We can observe the test for distribution that all variable values were significantly different than
a normality distribution since entire value variable of significant level are less than 0.05.
Therefore, non-parametric tests were used such as Spearman correlation coefficients, Binomial
test, Mann-Whitney test, and so on.
B. Testing the normality for the entire variable measuring the tools and technique of lean
manufacturing and six sigma are shown Table 3.6.
H0: The variables (lean manufacturing and six sigma practices) does not follow normal
distribution
Ha: The variables (lean manufacturing and six sigma practices) does follow normal distribution
It shows the probability for the entire variable value are significant, since P-value are less than
0.05, so we accepted (H0) that these data or variable are different from normal distribution.
61
Table 3.6 Test of normality for tools and technique of lean manufacturing and six sigma
Tools Kolmogorov- Shapiro-Wilk Tools Kolmogorov- Shapiro-
Smirnova Smirnova Wilk
Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
5S .000 .000 Kanban .016 .007
Kaizen team .003 .003 Check sheet .000 .002
Standardized
.000 .001 Pareto chart .000 .003
Work
TPM .000 .004 DOE .000 .000
Takt time .008 .002 Control chart .012 .004
Cause and effect
Once piece flow .000 .000 .000 .001
diagram
SMED .006 .003 Flow chart .001 .005
Cellular lay-out .000 .000 VOC .031 .008
Poka-yoke .000 .003 FMEA .000 .002
Visual Control .007 .004 DPMO .000 .000
Gemba .011 .004 DMAIC .000 .000
Regression
Brainstorming .001 .001 .000 .000
analysis
Value Stream
.000 .001 PDCA .000 .000
Mapping
C. Test the normality for the entire variable for success factors of implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma.
H0: The variables (Success factors of lean manufacturing and six sigma) does not follow
normal distribution
Ha: The variables (Success factors of lean manufacturing and six sigma) does follow normal
distribution
The decisions of normality were based on the results of Kolmogorov test and Shapiro test. The
investigation of normality test provided that these data for measuring the success factors of lean
manufacturing and six sigma are not normally distributed (P-vale less the 0.05). The result is
shown in Table 3.7. Consequently non parametric test is appropriated, a non-parametric test was
applied to all the data in this study (e.g., Spearman’s rho, Kruskal–Wallis test, Mann–Whitney
test, Kruskal–Wallis test).
62
Table 3.7 Test of normality for tools and technique of lean manufacturing and six sigma
Success factors for Lean Kolmogorov Shapiro- Success factors for Six Kolmogorov- Shapiro-
manufacturing -Smirnova Wilk Sigma Smirnova Wilk
Sig Sig Sig sig
Top Management Top Management
.000 .000 .000 .000
commitment and support commitment and support
Linking six sigma to
Involvement of employees .000 .000 .009 .010
customers
Linking lean method to Involvement of
.000 .000 .000 .000
suppliers employees
Linking six sigma
Education and training .000 .000 .000 .003
method to suppliers
Communication .000 .000 Education and training .000 .000
Linking lean Method to the
.000 .000 Communication .000 .000
business strategy
Linking six sigma
Consultant participation .001 .008 Method to the business .003 .001
strategy
Understanding the tools
within lean method to the
.000 .000 Consultant participation .000 .004
employees that perform
job in shop floor
Understanding the tools Understanding the tools
within lean to the within six sigma to the
.003 .004 .007 .012
employees that perform employees that perform
job in an office job in shop floor
Understanding the tools
within six sigma to the
Cultural change .000 .000 .002 .013
employees that perform
job in an office
Monitoring and evaluation
.000 .000 Cultural change .001 .003
of performance
Project prioritization and
Skills and expertise .000 .000 selection, reviews and .000 .000
tracking
Leadership .000 .000 Skills and expertise .000 .000
Kaizen team .000 .007 Belt system .001 .005
Linking Six Sigma to
Reward system .000 .003 .002 .011
human resources
Linking lean to customers .000 .005 Reward system .000 .000
Linking lean to human Project Management
.000 .001 .000 .001
resources skills
Project Management skills .000 .006
3.6. RESULT OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS (Descriptive statistics)
Descriptive statistics were used in analyzing and interpreting the survey results. In order to
recognize companies’ status with regard to implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma, the
study considered aspects such as the general profile of the organization, the type of industry, the
age of the company, the positions of the respondents to the survey, the number of employees,
and the duration over which lean manufacturing or six sigma had been implemented.
63
3.6.3. Age of the organizations
Table 3.8 represents age of the organizations, majority of the age organizations (75.8%) were
more than fifteen years. Four organizations (12.1 %) were between five years and ten years.
Three organizations (9.1%) were between ten years and fifteen years and an organization (3%)
were less than 5 years.
Table 3.8 Age of the organizations

Age Frequency Percent
Less than 5 years 1 3.0
Between 5 and 10 Years 4 12.1
Between 10 and 15 years 3 9.1
More than 15 Years 25 75.8
Total 33 100.0
3.6.4. Number of employees

Table 3.9 shows the classification of the surveyed organizations in terms the number of
employees. Twenty one companies (63.3%) were from employed up more than two hundred and
fifty employees, followed by 6 companies (18.2%) were from 50 to 249 employees, 4 companies
(12.1%) were from 10 to 49 employees, and 2 companies (6.1%) were less than 10 employees.
According to Europe Commission, we defined two categories: organizations that employed up
to two hundred and fifty employees or less are SME and that employed over 250 employees are
large organization.
Table 3.9 Number of employees

Number of employees Frequency Percent
From 0 to 9 employees (Micro companies) 2 6.1
From 10 to 49 employees (Small companies) 4 12.1
From 50 to 249 employees (Medium companies) 6 18.2
From 250 and more (Large companies) 21 63.6
Total 33 100.0
Table 3.9.1 shows conclusions of this investigation that 36.4% of responding organizations were SME
and 63.6% were large organization.
Table 3.9.1 Size of companies

Size of companies Frequency Percent
SME 12 36.4
Large companies 21 63.6
Total 33 100.0
3.6.5. Type of certification

Table 3.10 represents that (78.8%) majority of the companies were certified by various type of
certification. on the other hand, there were seven companies (21.2%) had not certified any type
of these certification. A majority of the companies were certified by various types of certification.
In this regard, 23 of surveyed companies, representing 69.7% are ISO 9001 Quality Management
Systems certified; 14 of the companies or 42.4%, are ISO 14001 Environmental Management
65
Standard certified, 7 of the companies or 18.2%, are OHSAS18001 Occupational Health and
Safety Assessment certified; and 5 of the companies or 15.1 % are ISO13485 International
organization for standardization certified.
Table 3.10 Type of certification

Accreditation Type of certification Percent
NO Percent NO Percent
standardization Standardization (Yes)
ISO 9001 23 37.7% 69.7%
ISO 14001 14 23% 42.4%
EN 9100 7 11.5% 21.2%
Yes 26 78.8
OHSAS18001 6 9.8% 18.2%
ISO13485 5 8.2% 15.2%
ISOTS16949 6 9.8% 18.2%
NO 7 21.2 33 100
3.6.6. Belt System

Majorities of the organizations (63.6%) didn’t employ any classifications of belt system;
champions, master black belts, black belts and green belts and few organization (36.4 %) employ
belts system within their organization, respectively (Table 3.11). In few organizations (36.4 %)
have employed belts system, the results show that belt system varies from company to other
company, (21%) employ yellow belt, (30.4%) employ green belt, (17.4%) employ black belt,
(17.4%) employ master black belt, and (8.7%) employed champion.
Table 3.11 Belts system status

Belt system Frequency Percent Type of belt system NO Percent
Yellow belt 6 26.1%
Greenbelt 7 30.4%
Yes BB 4 17.4%
12 36.4
MBB 4 17.4%
Champion 2 8.7%
No
21 63.6 None 0 0%
3.6.7. Methods implemented

Table 3.12 presents the status of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation within French
industries. (60.6%) Twenty companies have implemented lean Manufacturing only even though
most of these companies have been implementing six sigma tools practices such as DOE (61.9%),
DPMO (66.7%), FEMA (81%), and (47.8%) DMAIC (47.8%) and control chart (71.4%). Nine
companies had implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma and four companies (12.1%) have
not implemented any of these method. Even though these companies have been implementing
many of the lean manufacturing and six sigma practices but it may not called either lean
manufacturing or six sigma in their organizations.
66
Table 3.12 Implementation methods
Method Frequency Percent
Lean Manufacturing 20 60.6
Lean manufacturing and six sigma 9 27.2
Limited lean and six sigma tools 4 12.1
Total 33 100.0
3.6.8. Numbers of years

Table 3.13 displays the number years of implementing the method. The majority (48.5%) of
French organizations of our sample have implemented the methods (less than three years). This
finding suggests that high tendency of French organization have recently implemented quality
approach (practice lean manufacturing and six sigma). (27.3%) from three to six years, 6.1%
from six to nine years, and 18.2% for a period nine years and more.
Table 3.13 Numbers of years have enterprises implemented lean and six sigma methodologies
Number of years Frequency Percent
Less than 3 years 16 48.5
9 years and more 6 18.2
Total 33 100.0
3.6.9. Company performance

The level of impact of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma have make-up as follow:
1 is strongly disagree; 2 is disagree; 3 is neutral; 4 is agree; and 5 is strongly agree. A higher
score for every benefit close to value = 5 that implied stronger agreement of the respondents on
it, and lower score for each benefit close to value = 1 that implied stronger disagreement. The
impacts of implementing of lean manufacturing and six sigma. The results are presented in Table
3.14.
Table 3.14 Performance measure for all companies

Main performance Mean Performance measure Min Max Mean STD
Financial Increases profit 2 5 3.88 .893
3.98
Performance: Reduces cost 2 5 4.09 .980
Reduces Lead-time 1 5 4.18 .983
Improves productivity 1 5 4.21 .992
Operational 3.95 Reduces variation 2 5 4.00 .901
Performance: Customer satisfaction 1 5 3.91 1.011
Decreases Inventory 1 5 3.91 1.011
Improve quality 2 5 4.27 .674
Safety environment 1 5 3.21 1.083
Increases suggestions 1 5 3.67 .990
Innovation 3.41 from the employees
performance Involves employees 1 5 3.76 1.001
Reduce turnover rate 1 4 2.82 .808
67
3.6.11. Tools and techniques of lean Manufacturing & Six Sigma
Lean manufacturing and six sigma tools and techniques are measured on a five -point scale. Table
3.16 shows the tools and techniques that are relevant to the implementation of lean manufacturing
and six sigma within organizations are investigated; each item was measured using a five point
Likert scale. Relative scales ranged from 1 = no implementation to 5 = complete implementation.
This is adopted by Shah and Ward (2007). A higher score on the Likert scale demonstrates that
lean manufacturing and six sigma techniques are used and implemented more extensively. On
the other hand, a lower score on the Likert scale indicates that lean manufacturing and six sigma
tools are not used or implemented extensively. However, Responses from the survey
questionnaires show that lean manufacturing and six sigma tools have applied but the level of
implementation vary from company to other company.
Table 3.16 Status level of lean manufacturing and six-sigma tools

Tools and technique N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation
PDCA 33 1 5 4.00 .901
Cause and effect diagram 33 1 5 3.70 .951
5S 33 1 5 3.67 .990
Visual Control 33 1 5 3.64 1.055
Standardized Work 33 1 5 3.64 .929
Brainstorming 33 2 5 3.64 1.113
Pareto chart 33 1 5 3.48 1.149
Flow chart 33 1 5 3.30 1.015
FMEA 33 1 5 3.12 1.244
Voice of Customer 33 1 5 3.12 1.317
Value Stream Mapping 33 1 5 3.12 1.386
Kaizen team 33 1 5 3.12 1.386
Check sheet 33 1 5 3.00 .968
Gemba 33 1 5 2.97 1.357
TPM 33 1 5 2.76 1.032
Kanban 33 1 5 2.64 1.220
Poka-yoke 33 1 5 2.64 1.168
SMED 33 1 5 2.58 1.324
Takt time 33 1 5 2.52 1.302
Control chart 33 1 5 2.52 1.253
Defects per million opportunities 33 1 5 2.48 1.482
DMAIC 33 1 5 2.33 1.451
Once piece flow 33 1 5 2.27 1.306
Design of Experiment 33 1 5 2.15 1.064
Cellular lay-out 33 1 5 2.06 1.321
Regression analysis 33 1 3 1.48 .667
69
CHAPTER 4.
ANALYSIS THE IMPACT OF LEAN

MANUFACTURING AND SIX-
SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION
70
4. Analysis the impact of lean Manufacturing and six-
sigma implementation on performance outcomes
4.1. Introduction
The methodology of six sigma aims at identifying and eliminating sources of variability
(Breyfogle, 199). Lean manufacturing, on the other hand, is concerned with the identification
and elimination of waste arising from non-value-added activities and with improvements in
quality (Wilson, 2010). The aim of this chapter is to determine the performance outcomes for
industries practicing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma, considering all 33 companies from the
survey. The influence on financial, operational, and innovation performance outcomes are
revealed (Alhuraish et al., 2016c). The study then seeks to determine the relative factors (such
as age, period of time, range of lean manufacturing and six sigma, belt system, etc.) that are
associated with the success of implementation of lean manufacturing and/or six sigma, in order
to determine which factors support performance improvements and which do not. Table A
presents a summary of chapter 4.
Table A. Summary of the chapter 4

Problem Objective Results
First, there is little in the The aim of this chapter is to This study has found that lean
literature describing how determine the performance manufacturing and six sigma improve
French companies are outcomes for industries practicing companies’ performance. The findings
currently performing with lean manufacturing and/or six indicate that there is no relationship
the implementation of lean sigma in French industry, and the between whether lean manufacturing and
manufacturing and six relationships between six sigma are implemented simultaneously
sigma. Second, many implementing lean manufacturing or separately on performance outcomes,
companies have failed to and six sigma at the same time, ISO with the exception of reduction in turnover
implement lean certification, the period and range rate and decreased inventory, and that size
manufacturing or six sigma of implementation, the level of has no influence on financial or
or combinations of these and success, company size, and the use operational performance outcomes. The
the literature review has of a belt system. This chapter also results of this study show that the
revealed several factors key investigates the key success factors implementation of lean manufacturing and
to the success of when implementing lean six sigma in all departments improves both
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma operational and innovation performance.
manufacturing and six separately, in order to reveal the Moreover, it is found that the use of a belt
sigma, but no previous importance of success factors for system improves quality and reduces costs
studies have compared lean each method. and variation. It is also found that in
manufacturing and six sigma comparisons between lean manufacturing
across common success and six sigma methodologies in terms of
factors. identical success factors, only some factors
are statistically significant.
4.2. Impact of lean Manufacturing and/or six-sigma implementation on

performance outcomes
A statistical analysis was performed in order to determine how the implementation of lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma impacted performance outcomes. The statistical analysis was
71
conducted using the binomial test, because of the abnormal nature of the variables relevant to
determining the significance of the impact of lean manufacturing and/or six sigma
implementation on company performance for all 33 companies. Before determining how the
implementation of lean manufacturing and/or six sigma impacted performance outcomes, we
performed a Spearman correlation among the main variables in order to understand the
relationship between financial, operational, and innovation performance. The results for the
Spearman rho correlation are shown in Table 4.1. Positive correlations were found between
financial performance and both operational and innovation performance. There was a significant
association (or relationship) between financial performance and operational performance (r =
0.600, p-value < 0.01) and innovation performance (r = 0.455, p-value < 0.01). Increased
financial performance corresponded to moderately increased levels of operational and innovation
performance. The Spearman rho data analysis also revealed a positive and significant correlation
between operational and innovation performance (r = 0.616, p-value < 0.01).
Table 4.1 Correlation among financial, operational, and innovation performance

Correlation Financial Operational Innovation
Spearman’s Coefficient Spearman’s Coefficient Spearman’s Coefficient
Financial 1.000 .600** .445**
Operational .600** 1.000 .616**
Innovation .445** .616** 1.000
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)
To assess performance outcomes for all 33 French companies in the study implementing lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma, measures of financial performance (reduced cost and increased
profit), operational performance (improved quality, reduced variation, improved productivity,
reduced times, increased customer satisfaction, decreased inventory, and improved safety
environment), and innovation performance (greater involvement of and more suggestions from
employees and reduced turnover rate) were investigated. Therefore, a binomial test was
conducted to detect whether or not there were significant impacts of lean manufacturing and/or
six sigma implementation on companies in terms of their financial, operational, and innovation
performance.
A. Evaluation of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation on the basis of financial
performance: Testing hypothesis
 Increase profit
The results of the frequency analysis of increased profit for all 33 companies are varied. Figure
4.1 shows the frequency of increased profit when implementing lean manufacturing and/or six
sigma. In order to determine whether the implementation of lean manufacturing and /or six sigma
has any influence in terms of increased profit, a binomial test was conducted, with the following
results.
Null hypothesis: lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation have not a positive impact
on increase profit. H0: P ≤ 0.60
Alternative hypothesis: Lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation have a positive
impact on increase profit. Ha: P > 0.60
72
used. The results of the Kruskal Wallis test indicated that there were statistically (p-value < 0.05)
significant differences existing between the three groups on increase profit and reduce variation.
Performance was also measured by reference to the period of time utilized in the implementation
of lean manufacturing and/or six sigma. The range of mean score for period less than 3 years was
2.69 to 4.06, the range of mean score for 3 to 6 years was 2.67 to 4.22 and the range of mean
score for more than 6 years was 3.25to 4.75 of practicing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma.
The longer these practices were in place, the greater the outcomes for financial and operational
performance. In order to emphasis that we have used spearman correlation to identify the
association between the number of years and companies performance. Spearman’s rho data
analysis revealed positive and significant correlation between companies performance and
number of years for implementing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma(r = 0.851*, p-value <
0.05).
Table 4.14 Mean on performance outcome across period of time

Main Benefit / period Less than 3 Between 3 to 6 More than 6 Kruskal
performance years years years Wallis
test
Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD
Financial Increase profit 3.50 .966 4.00 .707 4.50 .534 .045*
performance Reduces cost 3.75 1.183 4.33 .707 4.50 .535 .249
Reduces variation 3.87 .885 3.56 .882 4.75 .463 .028*
Improve quality 4.06 .772 4.22 .441 4.75 .463 .068
Improves 4.00 1.211 4.22 .833 4.63 .518 .481
Operational productivity
performance Reduces Lead-time 3.94 1.237 4.22 .667 4.63 .518 .352
Creates safety 3.00 1.03 3.00 1.225 3.88 .835 .288
environment
Customer satisfaction 3.94 .929 3.33 1.225 4.50 .535 .153
Decreases Inventory 4.00 .816 3.67 1.581 4.00 .535 .670
Involves employees 3.50 1.033 3.78 1.202 4.25 .463 .322
Innovation reduce turnover rate 2.69 .704 2.67 1.118 3.25 .463 .310
performance Increases suggestions 3.50 1.033 3.67 1.225 4.00 .535 .519
from the employees
As demonstrated in Table 4.14, the average values increased in virtually all items the longer lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma method have been practiced. Specifically, values increase over
4 where these methodologies have been in practice for more than 6 years. An overall, this infers
that years of implementing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma methods influence to the
companies performance in terms of increase profit and reduce variation.
4.2.3. Implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously
The respondents were asked a closed question (Yes or No) to indicate whether or not their
organizations have implemented both lean manufacturing and six sigma at the same time. The
results are displayed in Table 4.15, and show that the majority of sampled companies (81.8%)
have not implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma simultaneously.
Many authors have pointed out that simultaneous implementation of lean manufacturing and six
84
4.16 presented the status that SME should follow for implementing lean manufacturing and
six sigma.
Table 4.16 Statement that SME should follow for implementing lean and six sigma
Statement Frequency Percent
Implement First lean and then six sigma 14 42.4
Implement Lean and six sigma in the same time 4 12.1
Implement First six sigma and then lean 2 6.1
Doesn't matter 4 12.1
Doesn't know 9 27.3
Total 33 100.0
However, based on the results that we received from all 33 companies, we observed that some
companies implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma at the same time (18%), whereas other
companies (81.8%) either implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma at different times or
implemented lean manufacturing only. These companies and their responses are summarized and
compared in Table 4.17. The respond have difference opinion regarding statement that SME
should begin with their companies. Some companies (27.3%) responded that they did not know;
a larger proportion (42.4%) suggested implementing lean manufacturing initially, followed by
six sigma; and (6.1%) suggested implementing six sigma initially, followed by lean
manufacturing (Alhuraish et al., 2014a). We expected that, with regard to the order of
implementation of the two approaches, a high percentage would respond ‘Does not matter’,
because although lean manufacturing can be used to improve the process flow, six sigma can be
used to identify problems from a different perspective. Also, Bertels, (2003) indicated that,
irrespective of the starting point, every manufacturing process can benefit from the application
of both methods.
Table 4.17 Status of lean and Six Sigma and their recommended to begin implemented in case SME
Companies implemented Lean First then six sigma First Lean and six Doesn’t Doesn’t
lean and Six Sigma in the six sigma then lean sigma know matter
same time Simultaneously
Yes (18.2%) 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%
No (81.8%) 40.7% 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 14.8%
It was surprising that so few companies implemented both methods simultaneously, and that the
recommended approach among SMEs was to implement one of these methods before the other
(50% + 33%=83.3%). This could be explained by the limited resources available to SMEs in
terms of finance and time. It may also be due to a certain extent to a lack of awareness among
companies in France of the advantages of simultaneous implementation, since a number of
experts answered “Don’t know”. A review of the literature also reveals similar issues. Therefore,
with regard to the implementation of lean manufacturing or six sigma or both simultaneously, it
is necessary to determine the most appropriate approach for a given company, based on its
awareness of the critical success factors for each method, and its ability to apply these (see
Chapter 6).
94
Table 4.18 citification vs. Lean manufacturing and six sigma
Organization has any Organization implemented both methods Total
accreditation standardization? simultaneously?
Yes No
Yes Count 4 22 26
% 15.4% 84.6% 100.0%
No Count 2 5 7
% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%
Total 33
4.2.4. Extending lean Manufacturing and six sigma
Further analyses were conducted to determine the impact of extending lean manufacturing and
six sigma methodologies on performance outcomes. Therefore, we compared the mean score of
the companies performance between using lean manufacturing method to all departments and
those that had not implemented lean manufacturing to any department (Alhuraish et al., 2015a).
A similar criterion was followed for six sigma. There were two extending levels in the results:
extending to all departments or not extending to any department. A score of 1 referred to no
extending to any department and a score of 4 referred to extending to all departments. The results
indicating the mean scores of extending level for lean manufacturing and six sigma within the
organization across the impact on performance outcome are presented in the Table 4.19. It shows
increasing of extending lean manufacturing and six sigma reflected to rise company operational
and innovation performance such as improve quality, reduce variation, reduce cost, improve
productivity, reduce time and involves employees. On the other hand, implementing lean
manufacturing to all department assistants more to decreases inventory compared to six sigma.
Lean manufacturing including various tools such as value stream mapping, 5S, TPM etc, that
advantage to decrease inventory. Six sigma contains advanced statistical tools that specifically
apply it only when the issue are vague that help to diagnose the complex problem in improving
decrease inventory (Snee, 2010). Additionally, lean manufacturing emphasis to attack the seven
type of waste, one of these waste focus in reducing inventory. Therefore, implementing lean
manufacturing to all departments may get surplus positive to decrease inventory. However, the
results indicating the mean scores of extending level for lean manufacturing and six sigma within
the organization and the impact on performance are presented in the Table 4.19. Mann Whitney
U test was used at 1% and 5% for measuring differences in financial operational performance
and innovation performance between two sample companies that had not implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma methods in any department and those that implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma methods in all departments. This was a non-parametric test for
abnormal distributions. Table 4.20 illustrates (P-value and Z-value) the comparative differences
between companies that implemented the method in all department and companies that did not
implement the method at all, against performance outcome. The result of the study considers
significant if the p value < 0.05. This finding that there are significant differences in improved
quality between companies not implementing six sigma to any department and those
implementing six sigma in all departments (p value < 0.05). The differences were indicated in
the range of a mean value from 4.17 to 5. As well for lean manufacturing, there was a significantly
higher difference in the creation of a safe environment, employee involvement and reduce
97
turnover rate within the organization. Companies implementing lean manufacturing in all
departments are significantly higher compared to companies not implementing lean
manufacturing in any department (P-value< 0.05 ). The differences were in the range of a mean
value of 2.50, 2.75 and 2.00 to 3.67, 4.08 and 2.83. Implementation lean manufacturing to all
department support to make the employees more involvement and creates more safety
environment. Gunasekaran and Lyu (1997), found that implementing (JIT) lean tools supports
improvement in the safety environment and the quality within the enterprise. For example,
deploying the 5S system, visual controls supported cleaning up and organizing the workplace
through removing all unnecessary items for making the workplace clean and creating a safe
environment in the enterprise. It can be interpreted, based on the results that through
implementing and practicing lean manufacturing in all departments, employees become more
involved and are more likely to improve safety within the organization. Permitting employees
suggestions and input is an opportunity for greater employee involvement and participation in
the company. Continuous improvement will laid to improve the performance of quality by
collecting employees suggestion that can reflect to eliminate source of waste, improve quality
and reduce inventory (Powell et al., 2013).
Table 4.19 Comparable between the extending level for lean and six sigma
Impact performance Extending level Lean six sigma
manufacturing
Increase profit Not to any department 3.25 3.82
All department 4.00 3.50
Improve quality Not to any department 4.00 4.17
Reduces variation Not to any department 3.75 3.87
Reduces cost Not to any department 3.75 4.00
Improves productivity Not to any department 3.50 4.30
Reduces Lead-time Not to any department 3.50 4.30
Increases suggestions from the Not to any department 2.75 3.74
employees All department 3.92 3.50
Involves employees Not to any department 2.75 3.83
Increase Customer satisfaction Not to any department 3.75 4.13
Decreases Inventory Not to any department 3.75 4.22
Reduce turnover rate Not to any department 2.00 2.83
Creates safety environment Not to any department 2.50 3.39
However, involvement and suggestion of the employees are complemented each other, and we
asked these two factors, in order to determine whether employees had job satisfaction and
contributed to performance within the organization in terms of implementing lean manufacturing
and/or six sigma, employees participation/involvement and suggestions were measured. Results
show extensive agreement by employees in the implementation of lean manufacturing to all
98
department. Therefore, it has discover with this research that implemented lean manufacturing
support to increase the suggestion and the involvement of the employees (Alhuraish et al.,
2015b). On the other hand, implementing and practicing six sigma in all departments serves to
improve quality. The main achievement linked to the implementation of lean manufacturing and
six sigma in all departments is increased companies performance. In the other side, it displays
there is a negative impact of implementing lean manufacturing to all department of
increasing reduce turnover rate. As it may cause of lean method focus to added value only within
the organization that could reflect to increase reduce number of the employees that their work
useless with the organization. For example, Work cell layout identifies and removes or reduces
inefficiencies including equipment and people (George et al., 2005). So in this research resulted
showed significant of increasing to reduce number of employees with the organizations that cause
of implemented lean manufacturing to all departments (Alhuraish et al., 2015b).
Table 4.20 Comparable impact in performance of extending the level of lean and six sigma
Six sigma Lean Manufacturing
Impact performance
Z P-Value Z P-Value
Increase profit -0.58 0.562 -1.478 0.139
Improve quality -2.015 0.044* -1.137 0.256
Reduces variation -0.912 0.362 -0.445 0.657
Reduces cost -0.718 0.473 -0.996 0.319
Improves productivity -0.211 0.833 -1.268 0.205
Reduces Lead-time -0.16 0.873 -1.268 0.205
Increases suggestions from the employees -0.46 0.645 -1.917 0.055
Involves employees -0.26 0.795 -2.114 0.034*
Increase Customer satisfaction -0.407 0.684 -0.838 0.402
Decreases Inventory -1.517 0.129 -1.497 0.134
Creates safety environment -0.6 0.548 -2.154 0.031*
Reduce turnover rate -1.063 0.288 -2.499 0.14*
Note. 2 tailed Significance level on Mann–Whitney test: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01
4.2.5. Degree of success of adoption Lean Manufacturing & Six Sigma
The respondents were asked for the degree of success of implementing the lean manufacturing
and sigma methods on a five-point scale where 1=Not successful to 5= totally successful (0=Not
implemented either lean manufacturing or six sigma method with their companies. The presented
result illustrated the estimation success of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma
separately. The entire thirty-three companies were investigated to determine the level of success.
According to our resulted were presented in above Table 4.21, four companies were not
implemented lean manufacturing with their companies (4 %; Lean manufacturing); and twenty-
four were not implemented six sigma with their companies (72.7%; Six sigma). Only (6.1%) of
the respondents indicate that the initiative was a totally success for implementing lean
manufacturing while (3%) indicate initiative was a totally success for implementing six sigma.
Lean implementation having a higher proportion was (33.3%) that very successful. On contrast,
six-sigma implementation whereby only (3%) was very successful. (24%) of respondents
99
level of 0.05. This infers were no difference between SME and large companies concerning
extend lean manufacturing method (Chi-square value = 6.711, degree of freedom =4, P-value =
0.152).
Table 4.25 Extend of six sigma

Six sigma EXTENSION OF Six Sigma
Size of Not Implemented in Implemented in Implemented Implemented in
companies implemented few departments some in all all departments
in any departments departments including
department supplier
SME 75.0% 16.7% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Large 66.7% 9.5% 14.3% 9.5% 0.0%
P-value for extending six sigma method test is 0.623 indicates that the sample distribution is not
significantly different at an alpha level of 0.05, since p=0.623, this infers were no difference
between SME and large companies concerning extend six sigma method (Chi-square value =
1.764, degree of freedom =3, P-value = 0.623). It seems that SME and large companies have
similarity of extending six sigma method.
4.2.5.3. Estimation the level of success of lean Manufacturing and Six sigma
between SME and large companies
We made investigation to identify the level of lean manufacturing and six sigma success within
SME and large companies (See Table 4.26). Chi-squared were used to analysis the data. There is
no statically significant finding (Chi-square value = 2.117, degree of freedom = 4, p-value
=0.714). There is no association between SME and large companies in terms level of lean
successes. The results indicate an equality success of lean method between SME and large
companies.
Table 4.26 Level of lean manufacturing success

Lean Estimate the level of success of lean method
Size of Not successful Slightly Successful Very Totally
companies successful successful successful
SME 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 44.4% 11.1%
Large 10.0% 25.0% 25.0% 35.0% 5.0%
There is also no statically significant finding (Chi-square value = 3.750, degree of freedom = 4,
p-value =0.441). There is no association between SME and large companies in terms level of six
sigma successes. The results indicate an equality success of six-sigma method as well between
SME and large companies (see Table 4.27). There were no remarkable differences between SME
and large companies across level of success for lean manufacturing and six sigma. It may cause
that majorities of these companies (SME and large companies) have recently implemented both
method.
103
Table 4.27 Level of six-sigma success
Six sigma Estimate the level of success of six sigma method
Size of Not Slightly Successful Very successful Totally
companies successful successful successful
SME 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%
Large 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 16.7%
4.2.6. Belt system
Finally, In order to identify the effected side of belt system of six sigma, non-parametric test was
used to compare between the companies used of belt system and those are not across companies
performance, The level of performance outcome was found to be significantly different between
companies that employed belt systems and those that did not for three attribute, these attribute
are improved quality, reduced variation and reduced cost. These findings support that belt
systems produce a higher average of improved quality (4.67), reduced variation (4.42), and
reduced cost (3.76) compared to companies that had not employed belt systems within their
organization. The results indicate that belt systems can function to improve and increase
companies performance. There is evidence that belt systems contain in this sample that have
positive impact to increase operational performance. Belt system considered as a key success
factor for the six sigma implementation and these include belt categories such as green belt, black
belt, master black belt (Kwak and Anbari, 2006). The test shows a statistically significant
difference between companies in terms of improved quality (p-value= 0.0006), reduced variation
(p-value=0.048) and reduced cost (p-value=0.008) (see Table 4.28). The utility of the belt system
is confirmed by a study that revealed that using a belt system realized significant savings and
profits (Harry, 1998, George, 2002). The remaining factors (p-value > 0.05) such as reduced
cost, decreased inventory, improved productivity etc. do not show significant difference between
companies executing belt system or not. Figure 3.33 exhibits the advantage of comparable
performance outcomes of improved quality, reduce cost and reduce variation through the
employment of belt system. There are statically significant since the p-value was lower than
significance level 0.05. Thus, it can be concluded that the belt system is useful for improving
quality and reducing variation, and reducing cost but shows no other effect in the French
industries. This is suggested that belt systems are related to six sigma methodology, which is
focused more sharply on reducing variation and improving quality. The level of benefit was
presented in in the Box Plot that is shown in Figure 4.30.
104
of six sigma have been highlighted most frequently in the literature (Antony and Banuelas,
2002; Coronado and Antony, 2002; Antony et al., 2005; Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Gamal
Aboelmaged, 2010; Antony, 2011; Brun, 2011; Zailani and Sasthriyar, 2011). These factors
include, among others, involvement and commitment by top management, linking six sigma to
suppliers, and linking six sigma to customers. Taking these factors into consideration enables a
company to draw up a suitable plan for implementing six sigma (Kumar et al., 2007). As lean
manufacturing and six sigma complement each other (George, 2002; Breyfogle, 1999; George,
2003; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Gamal Aboelmaged, 2010; Antony, 2011; Snee, 2011),
these factors also play a key role in the successful implementation of lean manufacturing. Lean
manufacturing is adopted by companies to reduce production costs and to eliminate waste from
the production mechanism (Wilson, 2010), while six sigma is concerned with the identification
and elimination of defects in business procedures by paying attention to the performance
attributes that are considered critical for customers (Breyfogle, 1999). Although many companies
are currently carrying out research in order to maximize performance through implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma, there are many industries that often fail to implement either lean
manufacturing (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009) or six sigma (Chakravorty, 2009), or a
combination of these methods (Antony, 2011). Therefore, this chapter aims to identify the factors
that are essential for successful implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma. From the
literature review, it is evident that there exist many factors shared by lean manufacturing and six
sigma that lead to successful implementation. These factors include, among others,
communication, culture change, and top management commitment. These common factors may
or may not have identical degrees of importance for lean manufacturing and six sigma. In order
to examine this, a survey was performed to allow a comparison between these methods in terms
of their shared success factors. These factors were evaluated by experts in lean manufacturing
and six sigma or by those responsible for quality control in their organization in order to
distinguish the success factors for each method and to identify their priority for the respective
method.
The findings revealed that there are statistically significant differences in the level of importance
of their shared success factors between lean manufacturing and six sigma, including culture
change, communication, and involvement of employees, among others. Furthermore, a number
of similarities regarding the success factors shared by lean manufacturing and six sigma
methodologies were found, such as top management commitment, skill and expertise, as well as
linking of the method to suppliers (Alhuraish et al., 2016a). According to Andersson et al.,
(2006) there may exist a number of important issues concerning similarities as well as differences
between the lean and six sigma methods that have not yet been discovered. Hence, this study
provides an assessment of the comparisons that have been made of the key success factors
underlying both lean manufacture and six sigma, which might be helpful for companies when
they decide upon the methods to be adopted, depending on their organizational needs and their
ability to implement these methods. The main question for consideration is therefore: What are
the success factors that aid companies in the successful application of lean manufacturing and
six sigma?
106
This section has been organized as follows: The analysis of the results and the discussion of
the comparison between lean manufacturing and six sigma across the success factors. Secondly,
identification has also been made on the most critical factors for the implementation of the lean
manufacturing to companies that have successfully implemented lean manufacturing as well as
the most critical factors for the implementation of six sigma for companies that have successfully
implemented six sigma. Finally, the discussion as to why the comparison of both methods could
be valuable has been provided it.
4.3.1. Compare success factors Lean Manufacturing & Six Sigma
A comparison of 15 success factors shared by lean manufacturing and six sigma has been made.
Since the data that were used in this study were ordinal, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used.
This, being a non-parametric test, has been designed to test repeated measures, such as the
comparison between lean manufacturing and six sigma, using identical success factors. An
analysis was conducted to determine whether the two grouping variables (group 1= lean
manufacturing, group 2= six sigma) were significantly different from each other with respect to
their level of importance for identical success factors. The purpose of the analysis was to find the
differences and similarities between the common or identical success factors of lean
manufacturing and six sigma, in terms of the following hypotheses:
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between lean manufacturing and six sigma
with regard to common success factors.
Ha: There are statistically significant differences between lean manufacturing and six sigma with
regard to common success factors.
The key success factors for lean manufacturing and six sigma are presented in Table 4.29,
which shown a statistical average for each success factor. It can be seen that there are differences
in the level of importance for each method: for example, the second most important success factor
for six sigma, with mean value 3.55, is project prioritization and selection and review tracking.
Antony (2004) found that project prioritization and selection was the most important critical
success factor of implementing six sigma. On the other hand, communication was the second
most important factor when implementing lean manufacturing, with a mean value of 4.39. For
both lean manufacturing and six sigma, linking the method to the supplier was the least important
factor (with mean score 2.58 for lean manufacturing and 2.33 for six sigma). This indicates that
French companies are not interested in linking method to supplier. The aims of lean
manufacturing and six sigma are not only to minimize variation but also to reduce lead time
within the organization, although longer lead times cause organizations to increase inventory and
decrease productivity. Therefore, it is advisable to encourage suppliers to adopt lean six sigma,
since this helps to improve quality and productivity (George, 2002 and 2003).
As shown in Table 4.30, some factors were found to be statistically insignificant and others
statistically significant in the comparison between lean manufacturing and six sigma for identical
107
success factors. The results shows no significant difference between the lean manufacturing and
six sigma methodologies with regard to some of the identical success factors (p > 0.05 and 0.01).
These factors are top management commitment and support, linking of method to supplier, skill
and expertise, linking of method to customer, consultant participation, and reward system and
project management skills. This implies that these factors were equally important when
implementing either lean manufacturing or six sigma. Top management commitment and support
had the same level of importance for both lean manufacturing and six sigma and ranked first
among the critical factors, with a mean score value of 4.70 for lean manufacturing and 4.33 for
six sigma. Skills and expertise ranked as the tenth most important factor for implementing lean
manufacturing (with a mean score of 3.64) and the sixth most important for implementing six
sigma (with a mean score of 3.45). However, the main conclusion from Figure 4.31 and the
Wilcoxon test was that lean manufacturing and six sigma show similar levels of successful
implementation across the common or identical success factors, but show different priority
factors within French industry.
On the other hand, this study found statistically significant differences between lean
manufacturing and six sigma in terms of some of their common or identical success factors when
the Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted, since the p-value was lower than the significance
level of 0.05 and 0.01. The first factor showing a significant different between lean
manufacturing and six sigma was the involvement of employees, with a mean score of 4.24 for
lean manufacturing but 3.55 for six sigma. The average mean scores for lean manufacturing were
significantly higher than those for six sigma. The alternative hypothesis (statistically significant
difference between lean manufacturing and six sigma in terms of involvement of employees) was
accepted. Therefore, this implied that lean manufacturing needs greater involvement of
employees than six sigma. Various other investigations by both academics and practitioners have
supported this result. According to Antony (2011), implementation of six sigma does not include
people in improvement tasks, while implementation of lean manufacturing requires people
engaged at the grassroots level with the help of continuous and creative activities such as
establishment of a Kaizen team. Furthermore, people require specific set of skills and
competencies before handling projects associated with the implementation of six sigma in an
organizational framework.
108
Table 4.29 A comparable the success factors of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma
Rank Success factors Lean Mean Success factors Six sigma Mean
Top Management commitment and Top Management commitment and
1 4.70 4.33
support support
Project prioritization and selection,

2 Communication 4.39 3.55
reviews and tracking
3 Involvement of employees 4.24 Involvement of employees 3.55
Linking lean Method to the business Linking six sigma Method to the
4 3.97 3.52
strategy business strategy
5 Education and training 3.97 Communication 3.52
Understanding the tools and
techniques within lean method to the
6 3.97 Skills and expertise 3.45
employees that perform job in shop
floor
7 Cultural change 3.97 Education and training 3.45
Monitoring and evaluation of
8 3.82 Cultural change 3.30
performance
Understanding the tools and techniques
9 Leadership 3.67 within six sigma to the employees that 3.06
perform job in shop floor
10 Skills and expertise 3.64 Linking six sigma to customers 3.06
Understanding the tools and

techniques within lean to the
11 3.61 Project Management skills 3.06
employees that perform job in an
office
Understanding the tools and techniques
12 Project Management skills 3.36 within six sigma to the employees that 2.91
perform job in an office
13 Linking lean to customers 3.30 Linking Six Sigma to human resources 2.73
14 Linking lean to human resources 3.15 Consultant participation 2.64
15 Kaizen team 3.06 Belt system 2.61
16 Consultant participation 2.85 Reward system 2.39
17 Linking lean method to suppliers 2.58 Linking six sigma method to suppliers 2.33
18 Reward system 2.58
Feng and Manuel (2008) indicated that implementation of six sigma can be performed without
the involvement of either a Master Black Belt or a Green Belt. On the other hand, Kumar and
Antony (2009) pointed out that one of the reasons why SMEs failed to implement lean at the
first attempt was involvement of employees. However, based on the results of this study and the
findings from the literature review, it is clear that the degree of involvement of employees in lean
manufacturing is more critical for the success of the implementation than in the case of the six
sigma method. Consequently, it is suggested that companies wanting to implement lean
manufacturing need the capacity for extensive involvement of employees.
109
(2010), and Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009) have all confirmed that lack of communication in an
organization results in an unsuccessful implementation of lean manufacturing. Although it is true
that effective communication also ensures successful implementation of six sigma within an
organizational framework (Coronado and Antony, 2002; Ho et al., 2008).
Lean manufacturing originated in the automobile industry in the context of Japanese

organizational culture, with the aim of improving process flow through elimination of waste,
whereas six sigma originated in the electronics industry in an American organizational culture
and tries to encourage effectiveness through enhancement of quality and accuracy through
reduction in variations (Chen, 2009; Laureani and Antony, 2010). The literature review
revealed that organizational culture and changes in management are important critical factors for
the implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma. Although the tools used in lean
manufacturing are more analytical in nature, those used in six sigma are more statistical
(Andersson et al., 2006). Hence, lean manufacturing requires a substantial change in the
behavior of employees such that they establish good habits in their work environment. Because
of this, some companies hold the view that the lean method can only succeed within a Japanese
organizational culture, although this is a misunderstanding of the lean philosophy (Arnheiter
and Maleyeff, 2005). On the other hand, for six sigma, it is more important that employees fully
understand the concept of problem-solving through techniques such as the DMAIC framework,
DPMO, and DOE, as well as by adopting a statistical way of thinking (Kwak and Anbari, 2006).
Although culture change is a success factor for implementing both lean manufacturing and six
sigma, significant differences (p-value <0.01) were found between the two methodologies. The
average mean scores for lean manufacturing were significantly higher than those for six sigma.
This indicates that lean manufacturing needs greater changes in culture than six sigma. An
example of this is given by the 5S system, whose operation involves unique lean manufacturing
tools and techniques that help reduce waste. It is easy to understand the concept of 5S, but
employees may have difficulties in performing it on a daily basis, since it requires changes in
individuals’ behavior. The 5S system requires that employees practice 5S as a routine task within
their work environment (Gunasekaran, 1997). Puvanasvaran et al. (2009) pointed out that very
few companies have succeeded in implementing lean manufacturing practices, one of the reasons
for which being the distinctive behavior displayed by employees in the workplace. Furthermore,
behavioral change is considered as key to the sustainable and successful development and
implementation of lean manufacturing (Emiliani, 1998). In addition, Wilson (2010) stressed the
importance of ensuring that evaluations are based upon people’s behavior and not just word-of-
mouth. Hence, it must be noted that lean manufacturing requires a substantial change in the
behavior of employees such that they establish good habits in their work environment. Nave
(2002) suggested that selecting an appropriate method depended on organizational culture and
that changing the culture of an organization is imperative for successful implementation of the
method. Consequently, it is important for companies to decide whether they are capable of
changing their organizational culture to lean manufacturing or to six sigma or to a combination
of these. Thus, identifying and choosing an appropriate method depends on the capacity of the
company to change its culture. Additionally, the literature review pays considerable attention to
the implications at shop floor level of the implementation of lean manufacturing relative to that
of six sigma. It has been found that six sigma involves little immediate participation from
111
the analysis to compare between lean manufacturing and six sigma to the companies that have
successful implementation. 5 out of 9 companies that successfully implemented six sigma were
included and the other four companies were excluded since they were either not successful or
were slightly successful. This helped in recognizing the most critical factors and the manner in
which these companies have the most success factors of implementing six sigma. As shown in
Table 4.32, top management commitment, commination, education and training, skills and
expertise and communication are the most critical success factors for six sigma.
Table 4.32 Success factors of implementing six sigma

Success factors six sigma Mean
Top Management commitment and support 5.00
Communication 4.20
Education and training 4.20
Skills and expertise 4.00
Some observation from the Tables 4.31 and 4.32, it was found out that the top management
support is the one that was critical to success of implementing either lean manufacturing or six
sigma. It was also found out that culture change and involvement of the employees emphasized
what was previously illustrated that these factors are critical to success of implementing lean
manufacturing. On the other hand, skill and expertise is critical factors to success the
implementation of six sigma. This study only used a small sample for six sigma, it is
recommended that a large sample should be used for six sigma in future research in order to
verify the success factors of implementing six sigma for the companies that have successfully
implemented six sigma.
4.3.2. The reason of the comparison of both methods could be valuable
Key success factors are required and expected to enhance the success of implementing either
lean manufacturing or six sigma. Consequently, this has made it necessary to test the success
factors so as to identify the similarities and difference between lean manufacturing and six sigma
to expose the level of importance concerning the key success factors for each method. Therefore,
the results found in this paper can be useful in the comparison between lean manufacturing and
six sigma for several reasons:
Firstly, the results indicated that there were significant differences between implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma across success factors as well as difference in priority factors for
each method. So companies which are willing to apply lean manufacturing or six sigma or both
methodologies at the same time can be aware and more focused or concentrated on understanding
the factors that raise the successful implementation of the methodologies.
Secondly, as reported in the literature, an organization can achieve a significantly rapid

improvement in both efficiency and production when there is simultaneous application of both
lean manufacturing and six sigma, whereas implementation of either of lean or six sigma before
the other may bring about lack of improvement in terms of inventory, added value, the combined
lean and six sigma have the effect of improving process speed, inventory, reduced recycled time,
114
added value, among other improvements (George, 2002; Breyfogle, 1999; Arnheiter and
Maleyeff, 2005; Sorqvist, 2009; Gamal Aboelmaged, 2010; Pepper and Spedding, 2010 ).
There are many advantages of implementing both lean manufacturing and six sigma that are
acquired by implementation of both methods simultaneously, but the organization requires
maturity and clear strategy (Bertels, 2003). However, the simultaneous implementation of both
methods lean and six sigma may not be achievable by every organizations, especially SME, due
to lack of resources such as time, finance, expert. Various researchers have studied organizations,
which have implemented lean and six sigma at different times, by beginning with one method
either lean (Kumar and Antony, 2009), or six sigma (Snee, 2010) followed by the other with
success. One of the important factors that researchers often fail to take into consideration when
recommending simultaneous implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma is the fact that
some organizations lack sufficient resources for implementing both philosophies simultaneously.
This has prompted most companies to try to identify the best method between lean manufacturing
or six sigma or theory constrain that is the most applicable in their organization and the
implementation of one of the methods may yield similar result due to the fact that each method
can bring valuable idea, concept and technique to the organization (Nava, 2002). Furthermore,
the experts were asked to answer questions by selecting one statement that SME should follow
when implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma. The results displayed in Table 4.33 shows
that the majority of sampled companies (81.8%) have not implemented both lean manufacturing
and six sigma simultaneously. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that a few respondents
preferred to begin the implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma in SME
simultaneously.
Table 4.33 Status integration of lean and Six Sigma and their recommended to begin implemented in case SME
Companies implemented lean and Six Lean First six sigma Lean and six Doesn’t Doesn’t
Sigma in the same time then six First then sigma know matter
sigma lean Simultaneously
Yes (18.2%) 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%
No (81.8%) 40.7% 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 14.8%
Additionally, the results show, surprisingly, that some companies that implemented lean and six
sigma simultaneously and had recommended the implementation of one of the methods before
the other. This can be explained by the fact that SME have fewer resources and do not have the
capacity to implement lean and six sigma simultaneously (Alhuraish et al., 2014b). Therefore,
since it has been proven that the implementation of either of lean manufacturing and six sigma
at different time can also be successful, it is very significant to consider the factors that influence
successful implementation of each method. According to Kumar et al., (2006) clear guidance in
the framework is lacking during the project’s initial stages on which of the methods is suitable
between either lean or six sigma or combination of lean and six sigma. Thus, deciding on whether
an organization is to begin with either lean or six sigma depends on factors such as the
organization capability to implement either of the two methods, once the organization gets
positive impact and growth, it can integrate it with other method since the integration of lean
manufacturing and six sigma work more effective to improve quality, improve productivity and
satisfy customer.
115
Lastly, as it has been found that there were significant difference between lean
manufacturing and six sigma methodologies with respect to level of importance, it is valuable to
make organization aware of the critical factors as well as the priority factors for each method.
Consequently, a company may have clear guidance to determine appropriate method (whether to
implement lean manufacturing or six sigma or both methods) in order to make the necessary
plans for the implementation by taking into consideration the success factors of each method.
4.4. Conclusion
Based on the results of this chapter, it can be concluded that French companies are implementing
lean manufacturing and/or six sigma with significant performance outcomes. It appears also that
many companies within the French industry have recently begun to implement lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma. It seems that there is greater interest among French companies
in implementing lean manufacturing than six sigma. According to the results of the chi square
test, all French companies that had implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma either at the
same time or separately had similar outcomes in terms of financial, operational and innovation
performance, with the exception of reduced turnover rate and decreased inventory. The duration
of implementation of lean manufacturing and/or six sigma was correlated with a more positive
impact on financial and operational performance. Additionally, the findings indicate that
company size has no influence on financial and operational performance outcomes. The results
of this study also specifically revealed that the use of six sigma in all departments helps to
improve quality, while companies implementing lean manufacturing in all departments created
a safe environment and improved employee involvement within the organization. On the other
hand, implementing lean manufacturing in all departments reliefs to reduce turnover rate.
Moreover, the findings reveal that the use of a belt system also helps to improve quality and
reduce costs and variation. The results of this study thus suggest that companies can improve
quality and performance through the implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma.
Therefore, companies should be aware and have an understanding of lean manufacturing and six
sigma practices, since these methods can increase company performance. This research has
revealed the positive aspects of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma, namely,
employee involvement and participation. Consequently, it can be inferred that implementing and
practicing lean manufacturing and six sigma results in greater job satisfaction for employees,
while the company in turn seeks and achieves continuous improvement. The effectiveness of
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma is manifested in increased profits and improved
efficiency and quality. Each of these performance outcomes is accomplished through reductions
in cost and productivity, improved employee involvement, the creation of a safe environment,
improved customer satisfaction, improved lead times, and improvements in all other important
aspects of total quality management. This work has also compared the success factors for
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma, in order to determine the differences and
similarities in their level of importance as a means to help organizations focus on factors that aid
the implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma. Companies need guidance to avoid
confusion when selecting improvement tools such as lean manufacturing and six sigma that are
suited to the environment in which their business operates (Chakravorty, 2009). Therefore, it is
116
necessary to take into consideration the key success factors for each method so that companies
can decide whether they have the capabilities to implement the success factors.
117
CHAPTER 5.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
IMPLEMENTING LEAN
MANUFACTURING AND SIX
SIGMA PRACTICES
118
5. The effectiveness of implementing Lean Manufacturing and
Six Sigma practices
5.1. Introduction
Many companies have gained performance advantages from implementing lean manufacturing
and six sigma. We have statistically investigated these practices to determine their effectiveness
with regard to company performance. The results show that the tools used in lean manufacturing
and/or six sigma, such as 5S, TPM, Kanbn, and One Piece Flow, have supported increased
financial performance in a majority of these companies. These companies benefit more compared
with companies that have not implemented any quality tools. Additionally, an increased level of
implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma improves company performance. Moreover,
companies that have implemented both methods have achieved better results than companies
using either lean manufacturing alone or a limited set of tools from lean six sigma. The results of
this study have revealed significant differences between SMEs and large companies in terms of
a few tools, such as DMAIC, DPMO, and One Piece Flow. However, quality tools were found
to increase innovation, operational, and financial performance in a variety of production areas,
including reduced variation and cost, as well as improved employee participation and customer
satisfaction. Table B presents a summary of chapter 5.
Table B. Summary of chapter 5

Problem Objective Results
The main investigation described The main objective is to identify the The results indicate that there are
in this chapter involves potential benefits of implementing several advantages in practicing
determination of the status of lean manufacturing and six sigma lean manufacturing and six sigma
implementation of lean and the relationship between these with regard to improving
manufacturing and six sigma and company performance, in order company performance. An
within French industry and the to understand the effectiveness of increase in the level of
awareness by each company of each of these tools in terms of implementing lean manufacturing
quality tools concerned with improved quality, reduced cost, and/or six sigma corresponds to
financial, operational, and improved productivity, employee an increase in financial,
innovation performance. involvement, among others. operational, and innovation
performance
5.2. Lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
The respondent companies were asked to demonstrate the tools, which they had implemented
and not implemented from amongst the 26 available practices. It is evident from Table 5.1 that
majority of the companies implemented quality practices. Most of these companies highly
practiced Brainstorming, Standardized work, Visual Control, and PDCA, causes and effect
diagram and 5S, indicating that the majority of these companies implemented the basic tools of
lean manufacturing and six sigma.
119
5.2.1. Implemented and not implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma
practices across companies performance
A majority of lean manufacturing and six sigma tools support improvements in a company
performance outcome. Therefore this research seeks to provide an in-depth evaluation for
identifying the impact to which each of these tools can be implemented and practiced that support
company performance. The statistical significance of implementing and practicing these tools
will be demonstrated through the use of the Mann Whitney test in regards to companies that have
implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma and companies that not have used either these
tools. Results show that companies using lean manufacturing and six sigma effectively have seen
improvement in performance outcomes in terms of increased profits, improved productivity
compared to companies that have not implemented lean manufacturing or six sigma at all. The
first of lean manufacturing tools show in Table 5.2 significant difference by conducting Mann
Whitney test between companies implemented 5S and companies that not use 5S.
Table 5.2 Comparison impact performance across implemented and not implemented lean and six sigma tools
Mean
Status the Mean Mean
Impact Measure Result Kaizen Result Result
implementation 5S TPM
team
Not Implemented 2.50 3.50 Not 3.80 Not
Increase profit Sig.
Implemented 3.96 3.96 Sig. 3.89 Sig.
Not Implemented 3.50 Not 3.83 Not 4.60 Not
Improve quality
Implemented 4.32 Sig. 4.37 Sig. 4.21 Sig.
Reduces variation
Reduces cost Sig. Sig.
Implemented 4.16 Sig. 4.26 4.11
Improves productivity
Reduces Lead-time
Suggestions from the Not Implemented 2.50 Not 3.50 Not 3.40 Not
employees Implemented 3.74 Sig. 3.70 Sig. 3.71 Sig.
Involves employees Sig.
Increase Customer Not Implemented 2.00 3.67 Not 3.40 Not
Sig.
satisfaction Implemented 4.03 3.96 Sig. 4.00 Sig.
Not Implemented 2.50 Not 4.17 Not 2.60 Sig.
Decreases Inventory
Implemented 4.00 Sig. 3.85 Sig. 4.14
Reduce turnover rate Sig.
Result shows that companies using 5S system have more positive impact in increase profit,
involve employees and increase customer satisfied compared to companies that have not
implemented 5S system at all. Therefore, it seems more supportive to increase financial,
operational and innovation performance by implementing 5S. The study results also show that
practicing TPM aids in the decrease of inventory compared to companies that do not use it. This
is consistent with findings by Venkatesh (2007) who found that the implementation of TPM
121
leads to lower inventory while failure to implement TPM results in growth waste and cost such
as machine malfunctions, loss in processes and an increase in customer dissatisfaction. This
research reveals that there is a significant difference between companies that implement Takt
time and those that do not (See Table 5.3). Companies implementing Takt time has realized
increased profits, quality improvement, reduction of variation, reduced cost, improved
productivity, a reduction in lead time compared to companies who have not implemented Takt
time. Studies in the literature support these findings that through the implementation of Takt
time, and responding to actual market demand companies not only save time, but also increase
customer satisfaction (Sharma, and Moody, 2001). Additionally, there is also a significant
difference between companies that implement one piece flow and companies that do not.
Implementing One Piece Flow achieve greater customer satisfaction. Studies have shown that
customers are generally unsatisfied where one piece flow processes are not achieved (Shingo,
1988). Therefore companies wishing to compete in consumer markets are well instructed to
implement One Piece Flow effectively.
Impact measure Status the Mean Result Mean Result Mean Result
implementation Takt time Once piece SMED
flow
Not Implemented 3.20 3.71 Not 3.33
Increase profit Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
Implemented 4.17 4.00 4.08
Improve quality Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
Reduces variation Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
Not
Not Implemented 3.30 3.79 3.89
Reduces cost Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
Improves Not Implemented 3.60 3.79 Not 3.67
Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
productivity Implemented 4.48 4.53 4.42
Reduces time Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
Suggestions from Not Implemented 3.40 Not 3.64 Not 3.33
Sig. Not Sig.
the employees Implemented 3.78 Sig. 3.68 3.79
Involves Not Implemented 3.40 Not 3.57 Not 3.33
Sig. Not Sig.
employees Implemented 3.91 Sig. 3.89 3.92
Increase Customer Not Implemented 3.40 3.43 Sig. 3.56
Sig. Not Sig.
satisfaction Implemented 4.13 4.26 4.04
Decreases Not Implemented 3.50 Not 3.57 Not 3.22
Sig. Not Sig.
Inventory Implemented 4.09 Sig. 4.16 4.17
Reduce turnover Not Implemented 2.30 2.57 Not 2.33
Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
rate Implemented 3.04 3.00 3.00
Creates safety Not Implemented 2.80 Not 2.93 Not 2.78
Sig. Not Sig.
environment Implemented 3.39 Sig. 3.42 3.38
It is shown in Table 5.4, identifies a significant benefit for companies practicing Poka-yoke.
Poka-yoke has been determined to be a promising tool for increasing profits and reducing cost.
By contrast, companies that fail to utilize poka-yoke tools have lagged behind companies that
122
do in terms of cost reduction and profit maximization. The poka yoke is effective for achieving
defect free products and services (Shahin and Chasemaghaei, 2010). Practicing common lean
manufacturing tools such as Gemba aids in identifying and understanding the problem. This
study shows that using Gemba tools helps in increasing profits, reducing costs, improving
quality compared to companies that not practice Gemba. It is an advantage to make practices of
Gemba to demonstrate the entire process by eyes to identify the source of waste, instead of sitting
at the office. This research shows that there is several advantages in practicing Kanban compared
to companies that did not as it is shown in Table 5.5. The advantages include improved
productivity, reduced cost, reduced time, decreased inventory, and the creation of a safe
environment. Specifically, the use of Kanban tools supports the creation of a safer environment
within the organization over companies that not practicing to practice lean manufacturing tool.
Impact measure Status lean tools Mean Result Mean Result Mean Result
Poka-yoke Gemba VSM
Not Implemented 3.16 3.57 3.33 Not
Increase profit
Implemented 4.03 Sig. 3.96 Not Sig. 4.00 Sig.
Improve quality Sig.
Implemented 4.37 Not Sig. 4.42 4.37 Sig.
Reduces variation Sig.
Reduces cost Sig.
Implemented 4.30 Sig. 4.35 4.33 Sig.
Improves productivity Not Sig.
Reduces Lead-time Not Sig.
Suggestions from the Not Implemented 3.33 3.29 3.17 Not
Not Sig.
employees Implemented 3.74 Not Sig. 3.77 3.78 Sig.
Involves employees Not Sig.
Increase Customer Not Implemented 3.17 3.43 Not 3.33 Not
satisfaction Implemented 4.07 Sig. 4.04 Sig 4.04 Sig.
Decreases Inventory Not Sig.
Reduce turnover rate Not Sig.
Implemented 3.00 Sig. 2.92 2.96 Sig.
Creates safety Not Implemented 2.83 3.29 3.00 Not
Not Sig. Not Sig.
environment Implemented 3.30 3.19 3.26 Sig.
This study discovers that use of a flow chart is instrumental in involving and engaging employees
in terms of suggestions and input (See Table 5.6). The flow chart also improves customer
satisfaction as well compared to companies that not use these practices. Finally practicing a
regression analysis also supports an increase in profits compared to companies not using of this
kind of statistical tool. However, overall, the study shows that practicing lean manufacturing and
six sigma enhances companies’ performance. Specifically, there is a significant difference
between companies using lean manufacturing and six sigma tools and those companies that have
not implemented tools such as One Piece Flow, Flow Chart, 5S, Takt time, Gemba, Poka yoke,
Kanban, etc. However, Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.4 clearly presents an overview of the performance
outcomes for the companies implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma. Specifically,
123
illustrates a comparison between companies that implemented lean and six sigma, and companies
that had not implemented at all. Estimates of the average value for each lean manufacturing and
six sigma practice against companies implementing to no implemented at all, such as Figure 5.2
which shows the effectiveness of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma practices for
increasing profits.
Impact measure Status lean tools Mean Result Mean Result Mean Result
Kanban Check sheet Pareto chart
Not
Increase profit Not Not Sig.
Implemented 4.03 3.86 Sig. 3.90
Sig.
Not
Improve quality Not Not Sig.
Sig.
Not
Reduces variation Not Not Sig.
Sig.
Reduces cost Not Sig.
Improves productivity Not Sig.
Reduces Lead-time Not Sig.
Suggestions from the 2.71 2.67 Not 4.00

Not Implemented Not Sig.
employees Sig. Sig.
Involves employees Sig. Not Sig.
Increase Customer Not Implemented 2.57 2.33 4.50
Sig Not Sig.
satisfaction Implemented 4.27 Sig. 4.07 3.87
Decreases Inventory Not Sig.
Reduce turnover rate Sig. Not Sig.
Implemented 3.08 Sig. 2.93 2.81
Creates safety Not Implemented 2.14 1.67 3.00
Sig. Sig. Not Sig.
environment Implemented 3.50 3.37 3.23
124
Impact Status lean tools Mean Res Mean Result DMAIC Result Regression Result
measure VOC ult DPMO analysis
Not Not Not
Increase 3.80 3.84 3.85 3.65
Not Implemented Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
profit
Implemented 3.89 3.90 3.89 4.23
Not Not Not
Improve 4.00 4.46 4.07 4.15 Not
Not Implemented Sig. Sig. Sig.
quality Sig.
Implemented 4.32 4.15 4.42 4.46
Sig. Not Not
Reduces 4.00 4.23 3.86 3.90 Not
Not Implemented Sig. Sig.
variation Sig.
Implemented 4.00 3.85 4.11 4.15
Not Not Not
Not Implemented 3.20 4.15 3.79 3.90 Not
Reduces cost Sig. Sig. Sig.
Sig.
Implemented 4.25 4.05 4.32 4.38
Improves Not Implemented 4.00 Not 4.08 Not 4.14 Not 4.10 Not
productivity Implemented 4.25 Sig. 4.30 Sig. 4.26 Sig. 4.38 Sig.
Reduces Not Implemented 4.00 Not 4.00 Not 4.07 Not 4.00 Not
Lead-time Implemented 4.21 Sig. 4.30 Sig. 4.26 Sig. 4.46 Sig.
Suggestions Not Implemented 3.40 Not 3.69 Not 3.86 Not 3.60
Sig. Sig. Sig. Not
from the
Sig.
employees Implemented 3.71 3.65 3.53 3.77
Involves Not Implemented 3.40 Not 3.69 Not 3.86 Not 3.65 Not
employees Implemented 3.82 Sig. 3.80 Sig. 3.68 Sig. 3.92 Sig.
Increase Not Implemented 3.40 Not 3.85 Not 3.79 Not 3.75 Not
Customer Sig. Sig Sig.
Implemented 4.00 3.95 4.00 4.15 Sig.
satisfaction
Not Not
Decreases Not Implemented 4.00 3.77 4.29 3.85 Not
Not Sig. Sig.
Inventory Sig.
Implemented 3.89 Sig 4.00 3.63 4.00
Not Implemented 2.40 2.77 Not 2.79 Not 2.55
Reduce Not
Not Sig Sig.
turnover rate Implemented 2.89 2.85 2.84 3.23 Sig.
Sig
Creates safety Not Implemented 2.80 Not 3.00 Not 3.43 Not 2.95 Not
environment Implemented 3.29 Sig 3.35 Sig 3.05 Sig. 3.62 Sig.
125
5S
5S Regression100 Kaize …
Regression100 Kaizen team DMAIC Sta da d…
DMAIC Sta da dized… 80
80 DPMO TPM
DPMO TPM
60
60 FMEA Takt time
FMEA Takt time
40
40 VOC O e…
VOC O e pie e… 20
20
Flow chart 0 SMED
Flow chart 0 SMED
Co t ol… Cellula …
Control chart Cellular lay-o
DOE Poka-yoke
DOE Poka-yoke
Pa eto… Visual…
Pareto chart Visual Control Che k… Gemba
Check sheet Gemba Kanban VSM
Kanban VSM PDCA
PDCA
Reduces cost (Implemented L6S) Increase profit (implemented L6S)
Increase profit (Not implemented L6S)

Reduces cost (Not implemented L6S)
Figure 5.2: Comparsion the effectiveness of lean manufacturing six sigma practices for finacail perfroamcne.
Obviously, lean manufacturing and six sigma practices demonstrate best practices for improving
performance outcomes. It has observed that companies implementing lean six-sigma practices
have achieved higher impact on increase profit as compared to other companies have not
implemented lean six sigma practices at all. The above diagram shows that several tools support
increased profits. The relevant tools are 5S, Poke Yoke, Kanban, VSM, Visual Control, PDCA,
SMED, and Kaizen Team were perceived the highest by increase profit. In order to identify
whether or not significant differences exist between companies that implemented lean and six
sigma practices, and companies that had not implemented at all, the Mann Whitney U test was
conducted. The results of the comparison show significant differences between two companies
at 5% significant level on increased profits through 5S, Takt time, Poka Yoke, and PDCA.
Additionally, lean manufacturing and six sigma practices support for reducing cost. The result of
comparison show significant different between two companies at the 5% significant level on
reduce cost by Takt time, Poka Yoke, Gemba,VSM, Kanban and Voice of Customer (VOC).
These practices correlated and supported with reduced cost, compared to the companies that did
not utilize these practices.
126
5S
5S 100
Regression Kaizen team
Regression100 Kaizen team DMAIC Sta da diz…
DMAIC Standardiz… 80
80 DPMO TPM
DPMO TPM
60
FMEA
60 Takt time
FMEA Takt time
40
40 VOC O e pie e…
VOC Once… 20
20
Flow chart 0 SMED
Flow chart 0 SMED
Control… Cellular… Control chart Cellula …
DOE Poka-yoke DOE Poka-yoke
Pareto chart Visual… Pareto chart Visual…

Check sheet Gemba Check sheet Gemba
Kanban VSM Kanban VSM
PDCA PDCA
Reduces time (Implemented L6S) Reduces variation (Implemented L6S)

Reduces time (Not Implemented L6S)
Reduces variation (Not implemented L6S)
5S 5S
Reg essi…
100 Kaize … 100
DMAIC] Kaizen team
Standardized
DMAIC Sta da d… DPMO
Work
DPMO
80 TPM
80
FMEA TPM
60 60
FMEA Takt time VOC Takt time
40 40
VOC O e… Once piece
20 Flow chart 20 flow
Flow chart 0 SMED

Control chart
0 SMED
Co t ol… Cellula … Cellular lay-

DOE
out
DOE Poka-yoke
Pareto chart Poka-yoke
Pa eto… Visual… Visual

Check sheet
Control
Che k… Gemba Kanban Gemba
Kanban VSM PDCA VSM
PDCA
Increase Customer satisfaction

Improves productivity (Implemented L6S)
Increase Customer satisfaction
Improves productivity (Not Implemented L6S)
127
5S 5S
100
Regression Kaizen team DMAIC] 100 Kaizen team
Standardized
DMAIC Sta da dize… DPMO
Work
DPMO 80 TPM FMEA TPM
60
FMEA Takt time VOC 50 Takt time
40
VOC O e pie e… Flow chart Once piece flow
20
Flow chart 0 SMED Control chart 0 SMED
Control chart Cellula la -… DOE Cellular lay-out
DOE Poka-yoke Pareto chart Poka-yoke

Pareto chart Visual Control Check sheet Visual Control
Check sheet Gemba Kanban Gemba
Kanban VSM PDCA VSM
PDCA
Decreases Inventory (Implemented L6S)

Creates safety environment (Implemented L6S)
Decreases Inventory (Not Implemented L6S) Creates safety environment (No Implemented L6S)
5S
Regression analysis100 Kaizen team
DMAIC] Standardized Work
DPMO 80 TPM
60
FMEA Takt time
40
VOC Once piece flow
20
Flow chart 0 SMED
Control chart Cellular lay-out
DOE Poka-yoke
Pareto chart Visual Control
Check sheet Gemba
Kanban VSM
PDCA
Improve quality Improve quality
Figure 5.3: Comparsion the effectiveness of lean and six sigma practices for opeartional perfroamcne
Lean manufacturing and six sigma practices support for operational performance. In the above
diagrams is shown that the several tools support to increase operational performance such as 5S,
PDCA, GEMBA, Kanban. It showed that companies implementing lean six-sigma practices have
achieved greater impact on improve quality, compared to other companies have not implemented
lean six sigma practices. The results of comparison show significant differences between two
companies at the 5% significant level on improved quality by Takt time and Gemba. These
improvements tools were observed in reduced waste, improve productivity and so on. However,
it can therefore be inferred from these findings that companies that implement Takt time and
Gemba realize more improvements in improve quality. Additionally, it showed interesting result
128
that companies implementing Gemba and takt ime and 5S have achieved greater impact on reduce
variation and improve quality as well. However, it can therefore be inferred from these findings
that companies that implemented Takt time, Gemba and 5S can be supportive to improve quality
and reduce variation. The above diagram shows that several tools support increased productivity.
The relevant tools are One Piece flow, 5S, VSM, kanban, visual control, etc. The results of the
comparison show significant differences between two companies at 5% significant level on
improve productivity through Kanban. This implies that companies implementing (Kanban)
practices expected to acquire improve productivity, compared to companies that had not
implemented Kanban system. Additionally, kanban showed significant supportive for reducing
time. Since the result of Mann Whitney test shows significant differences on reduce time by
Kanban system too, since the p value less than 0.05. The results of the comparison show
significant differences between two companies at the 5% significant level for increase customer
satisfaction. 5S, Takt time, one piece flow, Kanban, check sheet, flow chart shows the effect of
implementing these practices to increase customer satisfaction. Figure 5.3 obviously presents an
overview of the increase customer satisfaction outcomes for the companies implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma, compared to companies that had not implemented at all. The results
of the comparison show significant difference between two companies at the 5% significant level
for decreased inventory by TPM, Kanban and Flow Chart. Therefore these practices can be linked
to decreases in inventory with companies implemented these practices. The results of the
comparison show significant differences between two companies at the 5% significant level on
the creation of a safe environment through Kanban, Check Sheet, DOE, Control Chart and Flow
Chart. These practices are therefore linked to support the creation of a safe environment.
Therefore, it shows with this study several tools enhance the operational performance.
129
5S
5S
Reg essi…
100 Kaize … 100
Regression KaizenStandardized
team
DMAIC Sta da d… DMAIC
Work
80 DPMO 80 TPM
DPMO TPM
60 FMEA
60 Takt time
FMEA Takt time
40 40 Once piece
VOC O e… VOC
20 20 flow
Flow chart 0 SMED Flow chart 0 SMED
Cellular lay-
Co t ol… Cellula … Control chart
out
DOE Poka-yoke DOE Poka-yoke

Visual
Pa eto… Visual… Pareto chart
Control
Che k… Gemba Check sheet Gemba
Kanban VSM Kanban VSM
PDCA PDCA
Involves employees (Implemented L6S)

suggestions from the employees (Implemented L6S)
Involves employees ((Implemented L6S) suggestions from the employees (Not Implemented L6S)
5S
Regression 100 Kaizen team
DMAIC Standardized Work
DPMO
80 TPM
60
FMEA Takt time
40
VOC Once piece flow
20
Flow chart 0 SMED
Control chart Cellular lay-out
DOE Poka-yoke
Pareto chart Visual Control
Check sheet Gemba

Kanban VSM
PDCA
Reduce turnover rate (Implemented L6S) Reduce turnover rate (Not Implemented L6S)
Figure 5.4: Comparsion the effectiveness of lean six sigma practices for innovation perfroamcne.
Companies implementing lean six-sigma practices supportive on innvoation performance. It

found out increase suggestion from the employess, compared to other companies have not
implemented quality practices. The above diagram shows that several tools support to increase
suggestion from the employess. The relevant tools are Gemba, Cheek Sheet, 5S, VSM. The
results of the comparison show significant differences between two companies at 5% significant
level on increase suggestion from the employeess through Flow chart. This indicates companies
practicing quality tools such as Flow Chart can be supportive to collect idea from the employess,
130
comapred to companies that had not implemented flow chart. Lean manufacturing and six sigma
practices support to invovle the employees as well. The result of Mann Whitney test shows
significant differences on involve employees time by flow chart, 5S, and Kanban, since the p
value less than 0.05. This implies companies achieve more supportive to engage the employees
by implementing these practices, compared to other companies have not implemented this
practices. Consequently, these practices therefore correlate with improvement in employees
involvement. It seems Flow Chart is effective to support to employees engagement and
suggestion.
5.2.2. SME and Large companies Vs. Lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
A review of literature indicates that large companies are more likely than SMEs to implement
lean manufacturing and six sigma practices. Therefore this study seeks to determine the status of
companies within this research. In order to make this determination a sample of 33 French
Companies consisting of SMEs and large companies that vary from company to company in
terms of practicing lean manufacturing and six sigma practices, were included in the study.
However, we compared SME and large companies with companies that have implemented and
have not implemented lean six sigma practices. The purpose of the comparisons was to identify
whether or not size is linked to lean six sigma practices? A Chi Square was conducted on two
categorical variables (2 X 2) to evaluate the relationship between SME and large companies
across companies implementing and not implementing lean six sigma practices.
Ho: No relationship between size and lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
Ha: A relationship between size and lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
As illustrated in the Table 5.7 there are six significant practices out of the 26 at the significant
level 0.05 indications for links between size and lean six sigma practices. The practices of lean
manufacturing and six sigma are one piece flow, Gemba, Value Stream Map, Voice of customer,
Defect Per Million Opportunities and DMAIC. While the significance level is less than 0.05, we
can accept the alterative hypothesis Ha. In other words, we can conclude that there were
relationships between SME and large companies in implementing these practices. Based on the
results, it appears that large companies are more likely to implement these practices compared to
SMEs. The results of this study have revealed significant differences between SMEs and large
companies with respect to the use of several tools, notably DMAIC, DPMO, and One Piece Flow.
Statistically, it would appear that SMEs have more difficulty in adopting them. Therefore, lean
and six-sigma practices were linked to the size of companies within French industries. On the
other hand, no significant relationship was found between SME and large companies to other
lean six sigma tools such as TPM, PDCA, Kaizen, Stander work etc. An overall, size matters,
since some lean manufacturing and six-sigma practices were influenced by the size of companies
within French industries.
131
Table 5.7 Status of SME and Large against Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma
Lean six sigma Status of implementation P value
practices Size of companies Lean six sigma
Comparable NOT Implemented

Implemented
5S SME 0.00% 100.00% 0.17
Large companies 9.50% 90.50%
SME 25% 75% 0.449
Kaizen
Large companies 14.30 85.70%
SME 8.30% 91.70%
Standardized Work 0.149
SME 16.70% 83.30%
TPM 0.855
SME 50.00% 50.00%
Takt time 0.065
SME 66.70% 33.30%
One piece flow 0.032
SME 16.70% 83.30%
SMED 0.289
Cellular lay-out SME 58.30% 41.70% 0.553
SME 25.00% 75.00%
Poka Yoke 0.449
SME 8.30% 91.70%
Visual Control 0.149
Large companies 0.00% 100%
Gemba SME 50% 50%
0.002
SME 0.00% 100%
No statistics
Brainstorming Large companies 0.00% 100%
Value Stream SME 41.70% 58.30%
0.008
Mapping Large companies 4.80% 95.20%
PDCA SME 0.00% 100%
0.337
SME 33.30% 66.70%
Kanban 0.205
Check sheet SME 16.70% 83.30%
0.263
SME 0.00% 100.00%
Pareto chart 0.17
Design of SME 33.30% 66.70%
0.784
Experiment Large companies 38.10% 61.90%
SME 25.00% 75.00%
Control chart 0.824
SME 8.30% 91.70%
Flow chart 0.685
SME 16.70% 83.30%
FEMA 0.855
SME 33.30% 66.70%
VOC 0.0029
SME 66.70% 33.30%
DPMO 0.015
SME 66.70% 33.30%
DMAIC 0.032
Regression SME 75.00% 25.00%
0.193
analysis Large companies 52.40% 47.60%
5.3. Degree Level of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation
Lean manufacturing and six sigma tools and techniques are measured on a five-point scale. Table
5.8 shows the tools and techniques that are relevant to the implementation of Lean and Six Sigma
132
within organizations. Each item was measured using a five point Likert scale. Relative scales
ranged from 1 = no implementation to 5 = complete implementation. A higher score on the Likert
scale demonstrates that lean manufacturing and six sigma techniques are used and implemented
more extensively. On the other hand, a lower score on the Likert scale indicates that lean
manufacturing and six sigma tools are not used or implemented extensively. Responses from the
survey questionnaires show PDCA the highest level score with mean value 4.0 that indicate
majority of the enterprises within the thirty-three enterprises had commonly used of PDCA. An
explanation for this finding that companies look to perform continues improvement in their
process of product and service to improve the bottom line and increase customer satisfaction.
Regression analysis was the least implementation with mean value 1.48. It interpret majority
companies were not perform statistical analysis. The following Table 5.8 presented the tools
range or level of all lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation that were applied within
the thirty-three enterprises.
Table 5.8 Present the status of how do enterprises implemented lean and six-sigma tools
Tools and technique N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation
PDCA 33 1 5 4.00 .901
Cause and effect diagram 33 1 5 3.70 .951
5S 33 1 5 3.67 .990
Visual Control 33 1 5 3.64 1.055
Standardized Work 33 1 5 3.64 .929
Brainstorming 33 2 5 3.64 1.113
Pareto chart 33 1 5 3.48 1.149
Flow chart 33 1 5 3.30 1.015
FMEA 33 1 5 3.12 1.244
Voice of Customer 33 1 5 3.12 1.317
Value Stream Mapping 33 1 5 3.12 1.386
Kaizen team 33 1 5 3.12 1.386
Check sheet 33 1 5 3.00 .968
Gemba 33 1 5 2.97 1.357
TPM 33 1 5 2.76 1.032
Kanban 33 1 5 2.64 1.220
Poka-yoke 33 1 5 2.64 1.168
SMED 33 1 5 2.58 1.324
Takt time 33 1 5 2.52 1.302
Control chart 33 1 5 2.52 1.253
Defects per million opportunities 33 1 5 2.48 1.482
DMAIC 33 1 5 2.33 1.451
Once piece flow 33 1 5 2.27 1.306
Design of Experiment 33 1 5 2.15 1.064
Cellular lay-out 33 1 5 2.06 1.321
Regression analysis 33 1 3 1.48 .667
5.3.1. Regression Analysis
A linear regression analysis and Spearman rho correlation were used to find out the impact of all
lean and six sigma practices implementation on operational performance. However, in order to
identify whether there are positive outcomes from little implementation, some implementation,
wide implementation, complete implementation in terms of increasing company performance, a
regression analysis was therefore used to identify the relationship between the level of lean and
133
six sigma implementation and companies performance. To identify the influence of lean
manufacturing and six sigma implementation on companies that we aggregate mean scores of
variable such as increase profit, reduce cost, improve quality, improve productivity etc,
(dependent variable) and aggregate mean scores of lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
such as 5S, Kaizen, TPM etc, (independent variable). Findings as shown in Table 5.9 were
statistically significant (p-value= 0.00 and R square = 0.222). The results also showed significant
correlation (p-value= 0.00, R= 0.423*, ≠ ), meaning that lean manufacturing and six sigma
practices influenced the financial operational performance and it has positive relationship
between the lean manufacturing and six sigma practices and company performance. Therefore it
can be concluded that the more extensively a company implements these practices, the greater
the performance outcomes. Since, we discovered that the implementation level of lean
manufacturing and six sigma practices effectively of increases companies’ performance.
Therefore, we desire to determine which of these tools are effective for increasing company
performance. Consequently, we conducted the chi square test to identify the relationship between
financial performance and lean manufacturing and six sigma tools.
Table 5.9 Relationship between lean and six sigma tools and companies performance.
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .471a .222 .197 7.08909
a. Predictors: (Constant), Tools
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 444.816 1 444.816 8.851 .006b
Residual 1557.912 31 50.255
Total 2002.727 32
a. Dependent Variable: companies performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 27.265 6.387 4.269 .000
Tools .246 .083 .471 2.975 .006
a. Dependent Variable: company performance
134
manufacturing and six sigma practices were analyzed according to their implementation within
their respective organizations. The purpose of the data collection and analysis was to identify
how different companies practice these tools. Each item was measured using a five point Likert
scale. Relative scales ranged from 1 = no implementation to 5 = complete implementation. A
higher score for implementation demonstrates that lean manufacturing and six sigma techniques
are used more extensively (Where these tools and techniques were implemented and used more
commonly). On the other hand, a lower percentage indicates that lean manufacturing and six
sigma tools are not used extensively.
Table 5.10 Range lean manufacturing and six sigma among three groups
Companies implemented lean Companies implemented lean Companies using limited
manufacturing and six sigma manufacturing tools but not referring as
lean and six sigma methods
Practices % Practices % Practices %
Brainstorming 88.8 PDCA 80 PDCA 75
PDCA 82.2 Visual Control 77 5S 70
Cause and effect 80 Standardized Work 76 Cause and effect 65
Pareto chart 77.8 5S 74 Flow chart 60

VSM 77.8 Cause and effect 73 VOC 55
Kaizen team 75.6 Flow chart 70 Brainstorming 55
Visual Control 73.4 Pareto chart 70 Standardized Work 55
Standardized Work 73.4 Brainstorming 69 Control chart 50
5S 73.4 Check sheet 65 Pareto chart 50

VOC 71.2 VSM 63 Check sheet 50
Gemba 71.2 Gemba 61 Visual Control 50
DMAIC 68.8 Kaizen team 60 TPM 45
Flow chart 60 VOC 60 Kaizen team 45
Takt time 57.8 TPM 58 DPMO 40
Check sheet 53.4 Kanban 57 Kanban 40
Poka-yoke 53.4 Poka-yoke 55 Poka-yoke 40
TPM 53.4 SMED 55 SMED 40
Control chart 51.2 DPMO 52 Once piece flow 40
DPMO 48.8 Takt time 51 DOE 35
DOE 48.8 Control chart 50 Takt time 30
Kanban 48.8 Once piece flow 45 Regression analysis 25
SMED 48.8 Cellular layout 44 DMAIC 25
Once piece flow 48.8 DOE 42 VSM 25
Cellular layout 42.2 DMAIC 41 Gemba 25
Regression analysis 33.4 Regression analysis 29 Cellular layout 25
N=9 N=20 N=4
All of the tools and techniques of lean manufacturing and six sigma have been implemented at
a variety of levels by the participant companies. Among all of the Lean manufacturing and six
sigma practices, Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) is found to be the primary practices, with mean
score 4.00. Other quality tools that have been extensively implemented is the cause and effect
diagram with mean score 3.70 and 5S system with mean score 3.67. However, the least practiced
148
tools are regression analysis and Cellular layout.
Companies that implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma practices more extensively,
either of the lean manufacturing or six sigma practices such as DMAIC, Design of experiment
(DOE), regression analysis, VSM, GEMBA and kaizen, team take time (used more commonly),
as opposed to other companies. VOC, as opposed to other companies, Additionally, the resulting
percentage reveals a higher practicing of brainstorming that aids in performance areas such as
creating new ideas, defining and solving the issues in the process. These practices are indications
that these companies use more statistical tools and are more aware of lean manufacturing and
six sigma practices. Therefore, these companies were more frequently implementing lean and
six sigma practices. These practices demonstrated that these companies were intent on achieving
continuous improvement within their organizations. Where companies that implemented lean
manufacturing, also use the tools and techniques of six sigma such as DMAIC, and design of
experiment, but only slightly practiced these tools. On the other hand, the results show more
extensive practicing with tools and techniques such as 5S, TPM and kanban, and cellular layout.
But also it was observed that Kaizen and VSM were not be the highest priority among companies
that implanted lean manufacturing compared to companies implemented lean manufacturing and
six sigma. Therefore, it seems companies implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma were
found to be more matured of these practice. Other illustration explained by Ronald (2010) that
lean tools can generate to use six-sigma project. For example if VSM discover complex problem
without known the issue then six-sigma method might be the solution to resolve the problem
(Ronald, 2010). Additionally, George (2003) states that both methods complemented each
other. Therefore it can be interpreted from the literature review and our results that implemented
both methods contributed to be more conscious and knowledgeable on lean manufacturing and
six sigma practices. While companies that have not reported implementing lean manufacturing
or six sigma methods, have the lowest extensive practice involving lean six sigma practices
within their respective organizations. This indicates that these lean six sigma practices were
implemented, but not used usually or were not commonly used. Even though, the results do
reveal some measure of achievement in the improvement of company performance outcomes,
as shown in the scores for performance outcomes in Table 3.36. However, Figure 5.27 shows
the tools and technique that were relevant to the implementation of lean manufacturing and six
sigma among three categories.
149
Table 5.11 Degree level of lean six sigma implementation between SME and large companies
Lean six sigma practices Z p value
5S -0.651 0.515
Kaizen team -1.799 0.072
Standardized Work -1.22 0.222
TPM -1.15 0.25
Takt time -1.829 0.067
Once piece flow -2.556 0.011**
SMED (Single minute exchange of die) -0.883 0.377
Cellular lay-out -0.688 0.491
Poka-yoke -0.174 0.861
Visual Control -0.682 0.495
Gemba -2.171 0.03*
Brainstorming -1.22 0.222
Value Stream Mapping -0.948 0.343
PDCA -1.491 0.136
Kanban -1.585 0.113
Check sheet -1.434 0.151
Pareto chart -0.8 0.424
Design of Experiment -0.534 0.593
Control chart -0.827 0.408
Cause and effect diagram -0.758 0.449
Flow chart -1.773 0.076
Voice of Customer -1.708 0.088
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis FMEA -0.156 0.876
Defects per million opportunities -2.257 0.024*
DMAIC -1.921 0.055*
Regression analysis -1.427 0.154
Result is significant at the 0.05* and at 0.01** level (2-tailed)
On the other hand in order to improve process flows, lean tools and technique will be suitable. It
shows that One Piece Flow and Gemba techniques appear to present SMEs with difficulties. In
order to be a lean manufacturer it is required that the company adopts a way of thinking that
focuses on making the product flow through value added processes via one piece flow, a ‘‘pull’’
system that reflects and is consistent with customer demands with the result that replenishment
is consistent with what the next operation removes at short times (Wilson, 2010). One-piece flow
that is underachieved will result in several issues such as, long manufacturing lead time, poor on-
time delivery and large amounts of WIP. According Doolen and Hacker (2005) indicate that
smaller companies have struggled involving with some lean practices, since small company have
various customer and a schedule that changes all the time. Additionally Gemba technique one of
lean technique is supporting to identify the entire process in the shop floor that helping to identify
the issue and solving the problem (Rahani and al-Ashraf, 2012). It appears that SMEs encounter
difficulties performing some of lean manufacturing and six sigma practices. Thus, this proposes
that large companies are more probably to implement these tools more extensively compared to
SME. No significant different at the 0.05 levels was found between SME and large companies in
151
the other practices of implementation lean and six sigma. From Mann Whitney test & Spearman’s
correlation indicate that size of companies have some impact on the implementation of lean six
sigma tools and technique
5.5. Conclusion
Based on the results of this chapter, it can be concluded that companies are implementing lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma practices with significant performance outcomes. These
companies show improvements in operational, innovation, and financial performance. The
majority of the companies studied were committed to continuous improvement, since PDCA was
most frequently prioritized. Furthermore, the results reveal that companies implementing lean
manufacturing alone are still unable to avoid using six sigma tools such as DMAC and DPMO.
This demonstrates that lean manufacturing and six sigma are complementary tools. Moreover,
companies that implemented both methods have observed that this results in higher levels of use
of the associated tools compared with companies that either implemented lean manufacturing
alone or used a limited number of tools from lean six sigma. It was found that there are significant
differences between SMEs and large companies in terms of a few tools such as DMAIC, DPMO,
and One Piece Flow. Lean manufacturing and six sigma tools were found to increase performance
in terms of innovation, operational, and financial performance. Therefore, in order to compete
through improving the efficiency and quality of services and products to achieve profit
maximization, companies are advised to implement lean manufacturing and six sigma practices
together.
152
Chapter 6.
Estimate of Companies Performance
in the Implementation of Lean
Manufacturing and Six Sigma with
Decision Making Based on the
Analytic Hierarchy Process
153
6. Estimate of Companies Performance in the Implementation of Lean
Manufacturing and Six Sigma with Decision Making Based on the
Analytic Hierarchy Process
6.1. Introduction
To optimize performance, the vast majority of companies conduct research to decide how best to
implement methodologies such as manufacturing, six sigma, and so on lean. Lean manufacturing
is based on a concept that facilitates reducing both waste and cost (Womack et al., 1990),
whereas six sigma focuses on eliminating defects in services and products (Breyfogle, 1999). A
literature review reveals that, from a philosophical perspective, lean manufacturing differs from
six sigma. Both aim to continuously improve quality to satisfy the final customer (George, 2002;
Taghizadegan, 2006; Näslund, 2008). Furthermore, implementing both together appears to
produce exemplary improvements in efficiency (Breyfogle, 1999; George, 2003; Arnheiter and
Maleyeff, 2005; Gamal Aboelmaged, 2010; Antony, 2011; Snee, 2010).
To test this hypothesis, empirical data were collected to verify and identify how lean
manufacturing and six sigma affect the performance of French industrial companies. The
research results reveal that 27.3% of companies implement both lean manufacturing and six
sigma, 60.6% implement only lean manufacturing, and a minority use a limited set of tools from
both. Thus, 72.7% of French industrials do not combine SS and lean manufacturing. Companies
that implement lean manufacturing and omit six sigma obtain only mediocre improvements to
their quality of service, although implementing lean manufacturing without six sigma creates
problems that cannot be resolved statistically by lean manufacturing (George, 2002).
Conversely, implementing six sigma without lean manufacturing can lead to long cycle times or
increased waste, because lean tools support the SS methodology (Shah et al., 2008). Thus, the
present work assesses best methods for improving the performance of French industrial
companies. To determine whether differences exist between these three categories of companies,
this study investigates how company performance outcome by using the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP), which was developed by Saaty in 1980 as an objective method to analyze choices
for solving complicated problems. This work focuses on how company performance relates to
the methods implemented. The AHP model is used to rank the relative priorities in decision-
making based on three criteria: financial performance, operational performance, and innovation
performance. The AHP is used because it has been applied to many business and industrial
decision-making processes and it provides a method to choose between several alternative
solutions to complex problems (Triantaphyllou and Mann, 1995). The AHP is a measurement
theory relying on pairwise comparisons and the judgments of experts for compiling a priority
scale. Essentially, the AHP model involves constructing a hierarchy of problems and their
interactions, comparing the attributes of choices, and then prioritizing solutions (Saaty, 2008).
This work is based on two surveys: The first survey identifies items that influence the type quality
of the implemented methods used, whereas the second survey is an AHP questionnaire used to
identify the relative weight of three criteria and 12 subcriteria. The AHP process was used in this
154
work for two reasons: First, our sample consists of three categories: companies that implemented
lean manufacturing and six sigma, companies that implemented lean manufacturing only, and
companies that implemented only certain lean manufacturing and SS tools. Second, a literature
review indicates that implementing both lean manufacturing and six sigma instead of only one
of these leads to better performance. This begs the question of whether French industrial
companies that implement both lean manufacturing and SS enjoy better quality, increased profits,
reduced costs, and superior productivity relative to other companies. Therefore, the overall
purpose of this study is to prioritize methods for these three categories of companies to maximize
cost, quality, customer satisfaction (Alhuraish et al., 2016d). This research investigates not only
the impacts of lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation, but also the influence of the
implementation method based on the type of industry (Alhuraish et al., 2016b).
This chapter is organized as follows: Section 1 introduces the topic, the research strategy, and
the research objective. Section 2 presents an overview of AHP in general and as a tool for
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma. The AHP model is discussed in Section 3.
Finally, Section 4 contains the conclusion and presents plans for future research. Table C presents
a summary of chapter 6.
Table C Summary of chapter 6

Problem Objective Result
Finding the cause of the eight This research seeks in this The study results show that
variables (improve productivity, chapter two objectives. companies implementing both
improve quality, reduce time, decrease Firstly, to identify the status methods were more effective than
inventory, etc) on the impact of of the 12 variables on the implemented either lean
implementing lean manufacturing only impact of implementing lean manufacturing only or use limited
that show high mean score result manufacturing and six sigma tools of lean six sigma across
compared to companies implemented such as improve productivity, operational and financial
both methods lean manufacturing and decrease inventory compared performance. While companies that
six sigma. This is because; a review of to companies implemented used limited tools of lean six sigma
literature indicates that methods lean lean manufacturing only and gain minimal performance
manufacturing and six sigma leads to companies implemented improvements. The results
significant benefits in increasing limited tools of lean and six illustrated that automobile
companies performance. Therefore, do sigma. Secondly, to identify industries are the most
French companies that implementing the most efficient effectiveness of innovation and
lean manufacturing and six sigma methodologies of lean operational and financial
achieve improvements in quality, manufacturing and six sigma performance followed by service
increase profit, reduced cost, and within various industries and electronics industry. Moreover,
productivity as reported in the based on three criteria. These this study shows struggle of lean
literature relative to other companies criteria are financial, manufacturing and/or six sigma
that implemented lean manufacturing operational and innovation implementation with transportation
only or using limited lean six sigma performance. and health industry.
tools?
6.2. Overview Analytic Hierarchy Process
According to Saaty AHP model, when making decisions, individuals and businesses are
confronted with options and requirement from which to choose. As for requirements or criteria,
there are typically diverse levels of importance. Alternatives on the other hand are heavily
dependent on an individual’s preferred options for specific requirements or criteria, and in order
155
to prioritize the selection criteria, it is necessary to measure specific weights representative of the
comparative significance of the specific pairings (Saaty, 2008). A final priorities ration scale is
then organized illustrating alternatives in order of ranking.
The AHP model is a multi-criteria model that is compatible with many complex decision-making
scenarios (Ramanathan, 2001). The AHP process was developed to aid in making decisions on
the basis that good decisions require having a good idea of what consequences can flow from
choices. It is necessary to be in a position to judge is desirable or predictable (Saaty, 2007). AHP
is founded on the belief that in order to make sound decisions, people knowledge and experience
is just as important as the data relied on (Vargas, 1990). In decision-making, the AHP model has
been found to be particularly useful where members of the group are striving to reach an
agreement or to voice their own opinions, thus individual opinions can be amalgamated in a
variety of ways. Specifically, AHP can amalgamate individual opinions and individual priorities.
By taking this approach, all opinions can be weighed with equal significance for prioritizing the
soundest decision (Forman and Peniwati, 1998). The Analytic hierarchy process is based on
measurement theory for quantifying or establishing requirements founded on decision theory in
resolving problems (Vargas, 1990). However, literature review provides few case studies of the
AHP model application to the implementation of lean and six sigma methodologies. The AHP
model can be effectively used in the implementation of lean and six sigma methodologies. For
example, Hassan (2013) conducted a case study on the main contributors of waste. The results
of the study revealed that AHP can be successfully used to identify and resolve the main factors
attributed to organizational waste (Hassan, 2013). AHP was able to identify the primary waste
sources and in doing so aided in the successful implementation of lean and six sigma (Hasan,
2013). Su and Chou (2008) investigated the benefits and risk criteria for the six sigma project
selection. The study first began with the creation of important six sigma projects and then applied
AHP for evaluating the benefits of the projects and a failure mode effects analysis for evaluating
the risks associated with the project. By taking this approach, the research study was able to
identify ways in which six sigma project risks and benefits can be prioritized (Su and Chou,
2008). There is also support in the literature on six sigma for the use of AHP for improving
decision-making in specific manufacturing operations and for improving product quality and
reducing related costs (Azzabi, et al., 2009). Hu, et al., (2008) developed a multi-objective
model for selecting projects in the manufacturing sector. The study found that this model is useful
for implementing lean and six sigma. Moreover, AHP is consistent with six sigma management
systems because six sigma focuses on the elimination of defect and continuous improvement
(Banuelas and Antony, 2003). The AHP has been applied to many business and industrial
decision-making processes as it allows for a more specific way to choose solutions to complex
problems where several alternative solutions are available (Triantaphyllou and Mann, 1995).
Thus AHP process can be used for helping in making project decisions and planning (Banuelas
and Antony, 2003)
156
6.3. AHP used for best or optimal methods
6.3.1. Evaluation companies performance based on optimal method
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of three categories of companies:
Category (A) represents companies that have implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma;
category (B) represents companies that have implemented lean manufacturing only, and category
(C) represents companies that only use limited LSS tools. To use AHP to select the most effective
method for French industry as a whole, an AHP model is constructed and applied. The Super
Decisions software was used to apply the AHP model (www.superdecisions.com).
Step 1: Defining the criteria and subcriteria
After discussions with quality experts, the impact of implementing lean manufacturing and six
sigma was prepared based on 12 items, such as reduced cost, improved quality, reduced lead
time, environment safety, etc. The analysis contains two phases: in the first phase, the impact of
implementation is determined based on the type of operational methods used. This was done by
using questionnaires to collect empirical data. The second phase includes constructing the criteria
from an extract of the measurement of business performance table developed by Atkinson and
Brander-Brown (2001). Additionally, to assure that the criteria was appropriate, expert
researchers in quality systems verified that the criteria are clear and suitable. The result is 12
items grouped into three criteria: (i) financial performance, (ii) operational performance, and (iii)
innovation performance.
The first survey was done by using a Likert-type scale presented in a categorical manner designed
to measure value. Survey participants were asked to respond to survey questions with a number
from 1 to 5 indicating (1) extremely ineffective or disagree to (5) extremely effective or agree.
results indicate that, of these companies, nine implement lean manufacturing and six sigma, 20
implement lean manufacturing only, and four implement a limited of tools from LM and SS tools
(although they did not describe them as LM and SS methods within their organization). The
consistency of the questionnaire was verified by analyzing its reliability (Nunnally, 1978).
Cronbach’s alpha for all the items gives a reliability coefficient of 0.902. As shown in Table 6.1,
Cronbach’s alpha for the subcriteria of financial performance, operational performance, and
innovation performance is 0.790, 0.827, and 0.915, which indicates that the questionnaire is
consistent.
157
Table 6.1 The results of Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s
Criteria SubCriteria
Alpha
Increase profit
Financial performance 0.790
Reduce cost
Improve quality
Reduces variation
Improves productivity
Reduces Lead-time 0.827
Operational Increase Customer satisfaction
performance
Decreases Inventory
Suggestions from the employees
Innovation performance Involves employees 0.915
Reduce turnover rate
Step 2: Developing hierarchy
In this section, the hierarchical structure for selecting the best method is developed. The
performance is evaluated based on the four levels shown in Figure 1, which are objectives,
criteria, subcriteria, and alternatives. The first level contains the basic objective of choosing the
best or optimal methods. The second level contains the three important criteria of financial
performance, operational performance, and innovation performance. The third level contains the
12 most important subcriteria: increase profits, reduce costs, improve quality, decrease inventory,
improve productivity, reduce lead times, reduce variation, satisfy customer, safeguard the
environment, involve employees, reduce turnover rate, and gather employee suggestions.
The last level contains three alternatives A, B, and C implemented by these different methods
within French industrial companies. Alternatives A, B, and C are evaluated to select the most
effective methods.
158
strength of importance or dominance of one factor over another in terms of the criterion
set for comparisons. Saaty (2008) implied a 9 points Likert scale for ranking the
comparative importance of the criteria and subcriteria. The Likert scale ranks the degree
of comparative importance in a graduated scale from equal, moderate, strong, very strong
to extreme. The AHP pairwise comparison scale is shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 The AHP pairwise comparison scale

Intensity of Definition Explanation
weight
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the
objectives
3 Weak/moderate Experience and judgment slightly favoured one
importance of one over activity over another
another
5 Essential or strong Experience and judgment strongly favour one
importance activity over another
7 Very strong or An activity is favoured very strongly over
demonstrated another; its dominance demonstrated in practice
importance
9 Absolute importance The evidence favouring one activity over
another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values Used to represent compromise between the
between the two adjacent priorities listed above
scale values
Reciprocals of If activity i has one of the above non-zero
above non-zero numbers assigned to it when compared to
numbers activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when
compared with I
Source: Saaty, 1980
4. The matrix for pairwise comparison illustrate on the follow matrix
… … … . . C�
A A …….…A j
C A A ….……A j
5. A=
. . . ….……….
. . . ……………
. . . …………….
[C A� A� … … … … A�j]
6. Sum the value in each comparison matrix � � = A11+ A21+ A31….+ An1; then divide
each elements in the matrix by the total to generate to normalized relative weight
� = ∑�
=�
160
�
=
∑ −� �
7. At the next level, the priorities derived from the pairwise comparisons are utilized for
weighing the priorities.
∑ =�
=
In order to identify the effective method, a survey was administered to four experts from
Laboratory for Research in System Engineering to determine the relative effectiveness of each
criteria and subcriteria within Likert scale from 1 to 9.
Step 4: Synthesis of Priorities
A completely consistent matrix was developed for each evaluator of all criteria and subcriteria.
The synthesis of all these criteria measurements priority and calculating the Eigen value provides
final priority scale. Priority weights for each of the criterion were calculated by creating a pair
wise comparison matrix for criteria and subcriteria. A majority of the evaluator indicated the
highest priority to the criteria of financial performance followed by operational performance, and
innovation performance. The priority weights of the second level criteria (the impact of quality
practices on company performance) is presented in Table 6.3. In the next step, maximum Eigen
value �� was calculated. �� is used in calculating the consistency ratio. The consistency
ratio was performed to check the consistency of this decision acceptably or not acceptably.
Table 6.3 Priority weights for criteria

Criteria (Level 1) Evaluator 1 Evaluator 2 Evaluator 3 Evaluator 4
Financial performance 0.5841 0.333 0.7927 0.6144
Operational performance 0.2318 0.333 0.1312 0.2683
Innovation performance 0.1840 0.333 0.0760 0.1177
Consistency Ration (CR) 0.0515 0.06852 0.0208 0.0175
For checking whether the weights are correctly assigned pursuant to expert reasoning, the
consistency ratios are computed for measuring the consistency. It requires two phases: first
calculation of the max eigenvalue (λ ax ), second calculation the random index using the below
formula where random index is given in the below Table 6.4:
� �−
�� =
−�
Table 6.4 Random consistency index (RI)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Then, subsequently random index is given, in calculating the consistency ratio, the consistency
161
index was divided into a random index using the below formula:
��
�� =
��
Results show that the consistency ratios for the comparison matrix per evaluator are ≤ 0.1. Thus,
the four evaluators from the completed questionnaires indicate acceptable consistency. The
results indicate that the experts’ opinions are vastly similar. Calculations conducted based on the
strength of each experts’ opinion were 1/4.
Table 6.5 Overall priority weights for criteria

Criteria Overall priority Ranking
Financial performance 1/4*0.5841+1/4*0.7927+1/4*0.6144+1/4*0.333= 1
0.5810
Operational performance 0.2410 2
Innovation performance 0.1776 3
The results are delineated in Table 6.5 Consequently, the effect of the order of priorities
according to their occurrence, following the determination of the effect of the impact strength of
each individual decision, shows the highest priority to financial performance (0.5810), followed
by operational performance (0.2410) and innovation (0.1776). In the next step, subcriteria were
evaluated.
Evaluator 1 indicated a highest priority for increasing profits, a subcriterion under the financial
criteria. This was followed by customer satisfaction subcriterion under operation criteria, and
involved employees subcriterion under innovation criteria. The remaining rankings that follow
are shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Priority weights for criteria & subcriteria for evaluator 1
Criteria Weights SubCriteria Weight Rank CR
Financial performance 0.5841 Increase profit 0.526 1
0.000
Reduce cost 0.473 2
Customer satisfied 0.257 1
Decrease inventory 0.251 2
Improve quality 0.184 3
Operational performance 0.2318 Improve productivity 0.11 4 0.0471
Reduce variation 0.05 7
Reduce lead time 0.06 6
Safety environment 0.08 5
Involve employees 0.499 1
Reduce turnover rate 0.396 2
Innovation performance 0.1840 0.0515
Suggestion by the 0.104 3
employees
Evaluator 2 indicated equal priority to increases profit and reduced cost subcriterion under the
criteria of financial criteria, the highest priority for customer satisfaction subcriterion under
operation criteria, and involved employees subcriterion under innovation criteria. The complete
results for evaluator 2 are shown in Table 6.7
162
Table 6.7. Priority weights for criteria & subcriteria for evaluator 2
Criteria Weights Subcriteria Weight Rank CR
0.000
Reduce cost 0.500 1
Improve quality 0.182 2
Operational performance 0.333 Improve productivity 0.125 5 0.072
employees
Similar to Evaluator 1, Evaluator 3 indicated highest priority to increased profit subcriterion

under the financial criteria, followed by customer satisfaction subcriterion under operation
criteria, and involved employees subcriterion under innovation criteria. Complete results are
shown Table 6.8.
Table 6.8. Priority weights for criteria & subcriteria for evaluator 3
Criteria Weights SubCriteria Weight Rank CR
0.000
Reduce cost 0.250 2
Operational performance 0.1312 Improve quality 0.193 3
Improve productivity 0.113 4 0.097
employees
Finally, evaluator 4 also indicated highest priority to increased profit subcriterion under financial
criteria, followed by customer satisfaction subcriterion under operation criteria, and involved
employees’ subcriterion under innovation criteria. For complete results see Table 6.9.
163
Table 6.9 Priority weights for criteria & subcriteria scale for evaluator 4
Criteria Weights Subcriteria Weight Rank CR
0.000
Reduce cost 0.391 2
Improve productivity 0.136 3 0.056
employees
As demonstrated in Table 6.10, the overall weight for the financial performance criteria, the
weight obtained for the subcriteria are as follow: increased profit (0.596) and reduced cost
(0.403). While the overall weight under operational performance criteria are as follows: customer
satisfied (0.224), decrease inventory (0.148), improved quality (0.198), reduced variation
(0.136), improved productivity (0.121), reduced lead time (0.095), and the creation safety
environment (0.069). Finally, last criteria of innovation criteria (0.177), the subcriteria are order
of involved employees (0.423), followed by suggestion from the employees (0.296) and reduced
turn overrate (0.278).
Table 6.10 overall priority weight of criteria & subcriteria

Overall Overall Rank
Criteria SubCriteria
Weights Weights
Increase profit 0.596 1
Financial performance 0.5810
Reduce cost 0.403 2
Improve productivity 0.121 5
Innovation performance 0.1776 Reduce turnover rate 0.278 2
Suggestion by the employees 0.296 3
Step 5: The global comparative score for each category
Firstly, descriptive statistics were used in analyzing and interpreting the survey results.
Companies were categorized also into three groups commensurate with their implementation
methods as a means of analyzing the participants in financial and operation and innovation
performance outcome variables. In this regard, A=Companies implemented lean manufacturing
and six sigma, B=Companies implemented lean Manufacturing, and C=Companies have not
164
reported implementing lean or six sigma method, even though these companies have been
implementing many of the lean manufacturing and six sigma practices. In order to verify whether
there are significant difference respondent by groups on the impact on the operational
performance, Kruskal Wallis test was used. The results of the Kruskal Wallis test indicated that
there were no statistically (p-value > 0.05) significant differences existing between the three
groups in terms of improved quality and reduced cost except reduce turnover rate. Therefore,
with the exception of reduced turnover rates there are no significant differences between three
groups. In other words, according to the results of the Kruskal Wallis test, all French companies
had similar performance outcomes when implementing and practicing lean manufacturing and
six sigma except for the reduced turnover rate, indicating reduced turnover rate are different
among three category across performance outcomes. Observation reflected for the impact on the
operational performance, it is clear that they gained various benefits of performing lean and six
sigma, but the level of advantage varies among organizations. Remark exposed in Table 6.11
suggest that French companies implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma achieved better
mean performance levels than French companies that implemented only lean manufacturing and
companies that implemented only lean manufacturing and six sigma tools in terms of increased
profit (4.12), improved quality (4.63), reduced variation (4.25) and reduced cost (4.50). These
average scores reveal that companies implementing lean and six sigma achieve greater benefits
along several important variables indicative of efficiency and quality, relative to other companies
choosing only to implement either lean manufacturing or utilize lean and six sigma alone
Table 6.11 Comparing companies performances among three groups

Companies Companies implemented Companies using the tools Kruskal
implemented lean lean manufacturing but not referring as lean and Wallis test
manufacturing and six six sigma methods with their (P-Value)
sigma organizations
Benefit Mean Benefit Mean Benefit Mean Asymp. Sig
Increase profit 4.12 Increase profit 3.90 Increase profit 3.25 0.207
Improve Improve
4.63 4.19 Improve quality 4.00
quality quality 0.062
Reduces Reduces
4.25 3.95 Reduces variation 3.75
variation variation 0.422
Reduces cost 4.50 Reduces cost 4.00 Reduces cost 3.75 0.276
Improves Improves Improves
4.13 4.38 3.50
productivity productivity productivity 0.505
Reduces Lead- Reduces Lead- Reduces Lead-
4.13 4.33 3.50
time time time 0.252
Increases Increases
Increases
suggestions suggestions
3.50 3.90 suggestions from 2.75
from the from the
the employees
employees employees 0.092
Involves Involves Involves
3.63 4.00 2.75
employees employees employees 0.061
Increase Increase Increase
Customer 3.50 Customer 4.10 Customer 3.75
satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction 0.227
Decreases Decreases Decreases
3.13 4.24 3.75
Inventory Inventory Inventory 0.113
Reduce Reduce Reduce turnover
2.88 2.95 2.00
turnover rate turnover rate rate 0.041*
Creates safety Creates safety Creates safety
2.88 3.48 2.50
environment environment environment 0.165
165
pairwise comparison matrix was created for dealing with a situational AHP problem. A pairwise
comparison by super decision rating score performed. Therefore, we identified the Prioritizing
of the rating category as shown in Figure 6.15. For example, comparing excellent and above
average, logically, excellent is more effective than above average. Therefore, we estimate
excellent is 2 times more important or effective than above average and so on, for the other
comparison category (www.superdecisions.com).
Step 6: Evaluation of the method on the basis of three criteria
While the data were measured on an ordinal scale, we used the mode to synthesize opinions in
three categories (A, B, C). These ordinal numbers actually meant to the respondents, and derive
judgment-based priorities effective for them. We estimated companies (A, B, C) results by their
mode as shown in below Table 6.12. The interpretation of the answers of the mode score rating
was constructed from excellent to poor. The order of weight was considered as follows: excellent
was coded as 5, above average was coded as 4 and average was coded as 3, below average was
coded as 2, and poor was coded as 1. Consequently, we rated alternatives with respect to each
category A, B, C based on the mode results.
Table 6.12 Alternatives with respect to each category A, B, C

Performance measurement Lean manufacturing Lean manufacturing Used limited tools
and six sigma (A) (B) only (C)
Impact Measure Min Max Mode Min Max Mode Min Max Mode
Increase profit 3 5 5 2 5 4 2 4 4
Financial Reduce cost 4 5 2 5 2 5
5 4 4
Reduces variation 3 5 4 2 5 4 3 5 3
Improve quality 4 5 5 2 5 4 4 4 4
Improves 3 5 5 2 5 5 1 5 4
productivity
Operational Reduces Lead-time 3 5 4 2 5 5 1 5 4
Safety environment 1 4 4 1 5 3 1 3 2
Increase Customer 1 5 5 2 5 5 3 4 4
satisfaction
Decreases Inventory 1 5 4 2 5 4 3 4 4
Suggestions by 1 4 4 2 5 4 2 4 2
employees
Innovation Reduce turnover rate 1 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2
Involves employees 1 5 4 2 5 4 2 4 2
A. Financial Performance
The rating score for each of these categories with respect to profit and reduced cost were
established and overall priority score for each category were presented in the Table 6.13. As for
under financial performance, the results indicate that the priority weight category A = companies
implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma are the highest priority or most effective having,
score of 0.4294 compared to other categories B (0.2852) and C (0.2852).
173
of the lean tools as opposed to implementing just one or two random tools. The results of this
study confirm that implementing limited lean as well as six sigma tools can hinder a firm ability
to improve its financial performance.
B. Operational Performance
The general goal was the selection of the best method based on the most effective method among
A, B and C relative to the operational performance criteria. A pairwise comparison by super
decision rating score was used. The results indicate that A= companies that implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma used ideal methods with a score of 0.3812 as shown in Table 6.14.
The bar charts Priorities weight are presented in Figure 6.18.
Table 6.14 The weight of the alternative for operational performance

Methodology Priority Customer Decrease Improve Improve Reduce Reduce Safety
weight satisfied inventory quality productivity variation time environment
Lean
Above Above Above
manufacturing 0.3812 Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
average average average
and six sigma
Lean Above Above Above Above
0.3570 Excellent Excellent Excellent
manufacturing average average average average
Using tools Above Above Above Above Above Below
0.2633 Average
only average average average average average average
Priorities weight on operational performance for companies (A) that implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma yielded the highest priority. Companies that implemented lean
manufacturing (0.3570) show a higher priority compared to companies that used limited tools of
lean and six sigma (0.2633). Companies using some lean and six sigma tools show they have
lowest effectiveness under operational performance. However, it was interesting to observe in
the results that a majority of expertise evaluations concluded that satisfied customers, a sub-
criteria under operational performance, is the maximum priority weight (0.225) and therefore an
important influence in quality goals. However, findings indicate that companies that
implemented both methods lean and six sigma obtained higher priority weight (0.381) and their
performance outcomes were above average. Meanwhile companies that implemented lean
manufacturing obtained a slightly lower priority weight (0.357), although they were still
perceived as excellent. Regardless, the AHP result reveals that companies implementing both
lean and six sigma together still obtained the highest priority weight for selecting the best method
for operational performance, although companies implementing lean manufacturing only,
excelled. It can therefore be inferred from these findings that companies that implement lean
manufacturing and six sigma together can expect to see more improvements in operational
performance.
175
Step 6: Evaluation of the best industry on the basis of three criteria
A. Financial performance
The rating score for each of these industries with respect to financial performance were
established and overall priority weight score for each industry were presented in the Table 6.17.
The results indicate that the priority weight for automobile and service industries are the highest
priority or most effective having, score of 0.2170 compared to electronics industries (0. 2007),
health industries (0.1667), transportation (0.0317) and other industries (0.1667).
Table 6.17. The weight of the alternative for financial performance based on industry
Type of industries Priority
Increase profit Reduce cost
weight
Electronics industry 0.2007 Above average Excellent
Automobile industry 0.2170 Excellent Above average
Health industry 0.1667 Above average Above average
Service industry 0.2170 Excellent Above average
Transportation 0.0317 Below average Below average
Other industry 0.1667 Above average Above average
Figure 6.23 shows that companies vary in their benefits from industry to industry. The
automobile industry shows high agreement 56.20% and 43.80% strongly agree with no
disagreement on their companies in terms of increased financial performance. The service
industry followed with a 58.30% strongly agreeing and 25.00% agreeing and one company in the
service industry disagreed that their company experienced improved in financial performance. It
was also found out that Automobile and service industry emphasized what was previously
illustrated by AHP resulted that these industries are the effective across financial performance.
Although electronic industry showed a 44.40% agreement and a 27.80% strong agreement,
27.80% were neutral. The health industry showed 16.70% agrees and 12.50% strongly agree, but
there was a 25.00% disagreement. On the other hand, the transportation sector showed 100%
disagreement with their company across financial performance. The results showed that the
transport industry does not agree at all to increase financial performance. However, the
automobile industry shows greatest agreement followed by the service industry and the
electronics industry in terms of increase finically performance. Therefore, it seems these industry
gain more benefit of implementing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma compared to other
industry such as transportation and health industry.
180
Table 6.20 Measure the impacts of methodology implementation on various industries
Method N Electronic Automotive Health Service Transport Other
Lean Count 7 4 1 4 2 2
Manufacturing % 77.8% 50.0% 25.0% 66.7% 100.0% 50.0%
Lean Count 2 3 1 1 0 2
Manufacturing
% 22.2% 37.5% 25.0% 16.7% 0.0% 50.0%
and six sigma
Used limited Count 0 1 2 1 0 0
tools lean six
% 0.0% 12.5% 50.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%
sigma
Count 9 8 4 6 2 4
Total % 100 100 100 100 100 100
Rank the
impact by Electronics Automotive Health Service Transport Other
AHP
Financial
2 1 3 1 4 3
performance
Operational
2 1 2 1 3 1
performance
Innovation
performance 1 1 2 1 3 1
Rank AHP results; 1= First priority effectiveness or highest priority; 2= Second priority effectiveness; 3= Third priority
effectiveness; 4= Fourth priority effeteness.
In the service industry, 66.7% of the companies implemented lean manufacturing, 16.7%
implemented lean and six sigma and 16.7% implemented limited lean and six sigma tools. Even
so, the service industry companies showed remarkable performance outcomes. It seems lean
implementation is working well with their organization. Thus further research involving more
detail can help to identify why the most effective methodologies for financial, operational and
innovation performance outcomes as majorities of these companies implemented lean
manufacturing only. The results reveals that 25% of companies in the health industry
implemented lean manufacturing, another 25% implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma
and the remaining 50% implemented limited lean and six sigma tools. Results demonstrate
moderate effectiveness in financial and operational performance. It therefore appears that
moderate effectiveness is related to difficulties associated with implementing lean manufacturing
and six sigma within the health industry. Furthermore, it shows that companies in other industries
are comprised of 50% that implemented lean manufacturing only and 50% that implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma. Results indicate that the greatest effectiveness occurs in operational
performance with little advantages for financial performance since it is neither the first or second
priority weight. It would therefore appear that other industries perform well in operational and
innovation compared to their performance outcomes were perceived as third priority weight in
terms of financial performance. On the other hand, the transportation industry that was comprised
185
of a small sample of two companies with 100% implementing lean manufacturing only, did not
yield significant performance outcomes. It apparels that have difficulty of lean manufacturing
implementation with this industry. However, it appears that automobile, service industries as well
as the electronics industries, yield effective performance outcomes through the implementation
of lean manufacturing and six sigma.
6.4. Conclusion
The results of this case study indicate that using the AHP is advantageous for determining the
most effective methods. These results lead to the conclusion that both methods complement each
other to increase the financial performance, operational performance, and innovation
performance of companies. The box plots presented herein show the distribution of firm
performance for the three categories A, B, and C from 25% to 75%. The results indicate clearly
that category A is 50%, which indicates a stronger increase in financial performance compared
with categories B and C. Additionally, categories A and B generate equivalent results for
operational and innovation performance, whereas category C leads to the lowest increase in
organizational performance. The AHP results indicate that priority weighting for category A
means that companies that implement LM and SS are more likely to increase performance. The
results also show that companies that implement either LM only or both LM and SS can achieve
similar results for innovation performance. Therefore, companies that implement these methods
expect similar impacts on involving employees, gathering employee suggestions, and reducing
the turnover rate. In this study, three options existed for companies: (i) implementing LM and
SS, (ii) implementing LM only, or (iii) implementing limited tools of LM and SS. The criteria
were financial performance, operational performance, and innovation performance. The results
indicate a greater influence on all three criteria for companies implementing LM and SS. It
showed that companies implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma together can achieve
improved performance compared with those using one method alone or using only a limited
number of tools from either methodology. However, two important points have been noted.
According to the majority of experts, the variable with the greatest influence on operational
performance is customer satisfaction. Companies implementing both methodologies achieved
the best operational performance, even though their performance outcomes being above average
in terms of customer satisfaction, while companies that implemented lean manufacturing alone
had lesser operational performance, even though their performance outcomes were perceived as
excellent in terms of customer satisfaction. Consequently, superior operational performance can
be expected from simultaneous implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma. Future
research should focus on distinguishing the impact of lean manufacturing and six sigma with
regard to operational performance. There is a need to understand why the combination of
methodologies provides the greatest improvement in operational performance, even though lean
manufacturing alone can achieve superior results with regard to customer satisfaction.
186
General Conclusion and Future research
This thesis focuses on evaluating or estimating the performance of lean manufacturing and six
sigma implemented in French industry. These methodologies ensure that an organization
achieves superior performance, leading to satisfaction for customers, shareholders, and society.
It was found that company size (i.e., SMEs versus large companies) has no effect on the
implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma in terms of financial performance,
operational performance and innovation performance. Simultaneous implementation of lean
manufacturing and six sigma was found to have no effect on profit. Additionally, it has revealed
the absence of any relationship between certification such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 and the
simultaneous implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma. Thus, it appears that these
certifications have no supportive role with regard to implementing lean manufacturing and six
sigma in the same time. Additionally, the results of this research can be interpreted as indicating
that companies are facing difficulties in integrating lean manufacturing and six sigma
simultaneously owing to several reasons, including lack of knowledge, company culture, finance,
and lack of top management commitment. Further research should be conducted into the
feasibility of integrating lean manufacturing and six sigma with modified or simplified versions
of each methodology. This is necessary since this study indicates that implementing either lean
manufacturing or six sigma alone is insufficient to meet the demands of a competitive market.
On the other hand, this research revealed both negative and positive aspects of implementing
lean manufacturing and/or six sigma. It showed that implementation of lean manufacturing in all
departments facilitated greater employee involvement and helped create a safer environment in
the enterprise, while implementation of six sigma in all departments improved quality and
thereby helped to solve the difficulties usually associated with promotion of organizational
change. A majority of papers in the literature have focused on the positive impact of
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma, such as increased profit and improved quality,
while this research has illustrated a negative impact within these companies, namely, that
implementing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma can reduce turnover rate. Furthermore, lean
manufacturing and six sigma tools such as 5S, PDCA, GEMBA, Kanban, DOE, and Takt time
were found to help improve company performance. This research has shown the advantages of
each of these tools in terms of financial performance, operational performance, and innovation
performance. For example, several tools were found to be more helpful in reducing costs in
companies that used them compared with companies that did not: Takt time, Poka Yoke, Gemba,
VSM, Kanban, and VOC. The limited implementation of statistical tools (six sigma tools) such
as DOE, DPMO, DMAIC and regression analysis within French industry was revealed.
Additionally, this study has compared the common success factors for implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma, providing additional insight into the success factors for each
method. Further research is also needed to further validate some of these factors, such as linking
of the respective methods to business strategy or to to human resources, education, and training.
It is also necessary to understanding why some of these factors show significant differences in
level of importance between lean manufacturing and six sigma, since previous studies have
shown that these factors are important when choosing whether to implement either lean
manufacturing or six sigma, or both together. These factors need to be broken down into sub-
factors for future research. Moreover, the AHP model was used in this research to select the
187
optimal method. It showed that companies implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma
together can achieve improved performance compared with those using one method alone or
using only a limited number of tools from either methodology. This study also found that
implementing lean manufacturing alone is sufficient to improve innovation performance. Thus
companies implementing either lean manufacturing alone or lean manufacturing and six sigma
together can achieve parallel results in terms of innovation performance. This study investigated
which specific industries achieved the best performance outcomes when implementing lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma. It showed that automobile industries achieved the best financial,
operational, and innovation performance. It was also noted that a majority of service industries
implemented lean manufacturing only, but, even so, the service industry companies showed
remarkable performance outcomes. It seems that lean manufacturing is working well with these
organizations. Further, more detailed research should be able to help elucidate the reasons for
this. However, based on the results of this research, it can be concluded that French companies
are implementing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma with significant performance outcomes.
Informed by the results of this research, French industrial companies should be aware that
implementing both lean manufacturing and six sigma significantly improves company
performance. Therefore, for optimal results, organizations should consider integrating lean
manufacturing and six sigma to reduce waste, improve quality and value, and obtain greater
customer satisfaction.
188
Reference
Achanga P. Shehab, E. Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for
lean implementation within Sme. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 17(4): 460 –471
Åhlström, P. (1998). Sequences in the implementation of lean production. European

Management Journal, 16(3): 327-334.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2014a). Key Success Factors of

Implementing Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma. In Liverpool: 17th
Toulon-Verona Conference Excellence in Services, 1-16.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2014b). Lean and six sigma: a comparative
study. The International conference in Quality and Dependability, ISSN
1224-5410, 6-10.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2015a). The effective of lean

manufacturing and six sigma implementation. In Industrial Engineering and
Systems Management (IESM), International Conference on IEEE, 453-460.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2015b). Evaluation the operational

performance of implementing lean manufacturing and six. International
conference on industrial Engineering, Canada.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2016a). The Key Success Factors for Lean
Manufacturing versus Six Sigm. Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology, 12(2): 169-182.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2016b). Assessment of Lean

Manufacturing and Six Sigma operation with Decision Making Based on the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. IFAC conference on Manufacturing Modelling
Management & Control.
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. (2016c). Impacts of lean manufacturing and

six sigma. In 9th ISSAT International Conference on Reliability and Quality
in Design-RQD. USA
Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. Kobi, A. and Azzabi, L (2016d). Evaluation of

Companies Performance in the Implementation of Lean Manufacturing and
Six Sigma with Analytic Hierarchy Process, International journal of six sigma
and competitive advantage (Accepted for publication)
189
Andersson, R. Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006). Similarities and
differences between TQM, six sigma and lean. The TQM Magazine, 18(3):
282-96.
Anthony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002). Key Ingredients for The Effective

Implementation of Six Sigma Program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4):
20-27.
Antony, J. Escamilla, J.L. and Caine, P. (2003). Lean Sigma. Manufacturing

Engineer, 82 (4): 40–42.
Antony, J. (2004). Six Sigma in the UK service organizations: results from a pilot
survey. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(8): 1006-1013.
Antony, J. Kumar, M. and Madu, C.N. (2005). Six sigma in small-and medium-
sized UK manufacturing enterprises: Some empirical observations.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(8): 860-874.
Antony, J. Kumar, M. and Labib, A. (2008). Gearing Six Sigma into UK

manufacturing SMEs: results from a pilot study. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 59(4): 482-493.
Antony, J. (2011). Six Sigma vs Lean: Some perspectives from leading academics
and practitioners. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 60(2): 185-190.
Anvari, A. and Moghimi, R. (2011). The strategic approach to exploration review

on TQM and lean production. Journal of Contemporary Management, 71-82.
Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005). The integration of lean management and
Six Sigma. The TQM magazine, 17(1): 5-18.
Atkinson, H. and Brander Brown, J. (2001). Rethinking performance measures:

assessing progress in UK hotels. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 13(3): 128-136.
Azzabi, L. Ayadi, D. Boujelbenne, Y. Kobi, A. Robledo, C. and Chabchoub, H.

(2009). Six Sigma based multi criteria approach to improve decision settings.
International Journal of Quality Engineering and Technology, 1(1): 99-123.
Basu, R. (2004). Implementing quality: a practical guide to tools and techniques:

enabling the power of operational excellence. Cengage Learning EMEA.
190
Bendell, T. (2006). A review and comparison of Six Sigma and the lean
organizations. The TQM Magazine, 18(3): 255-262.
Bertels, T. (2003). Rath & Strong's six sigma leadership handbook. John Wiley &
Sons.
Bañuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2003). Going from six sigma to design for six sigma:
an exploratory study using analytic hierarchy process. The TQM Magazine,
15(5): 334-344.
Breyfogle III, F.W. (1999). Implementing six sigma: smarter solutions using
statistical methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Bertels, T. (2003). Rath & Strong's six sigma leadership handbook. John Wiley &
Sons.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1): 56-72.
Brun A. (2011). Critical Success Factors of Six Sigma Implementations in Italian

Companies. International Journal Production Economics, 131(1): 158–164.
Byrne, G. Lubowe, D. and Blitz, A. (2007). Using a Lean Six Sigma approach to
drive innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 35(2): 5-10.
Chen, T. (2008). Comparing Lean Production and Six Sigma Management. Asian
Social Science 4(7): 48-50.
Čiarnienė, R. and Vienažindienė, M. (2012). Lean manufacturing: theory and

practice. Economics and management, 17(2): 726-732.
Cohen, A. Tiplica, T. and Kobi, A. (2015). Design of experiments and statistical

process control using wavelets analysis. Control Engineering Practice.
Coronado R.B. and Antony J. (2002). Critical Success Factors for the Successful
Implementation of Six Sigma Projects in Organisations. The TQM Magazine,
14(2): 92 – 99.
Coffman, C. Gonzalez-Molina, G. and Gopal, A. (2002). Follow this path: How

the world's greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human
potential. Business Plus.
191
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009). Six Sigma programs: An implementation
model. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(1): 1-16.
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Mi Dahlgaard-Park, S. (2006). Lean production, six sigma

quality, TQM and company culture. The TQM magazine, 18(3): 263-281.
Dailey, K.W. (2003). The lean manufacturing pocket handbook. DW Pub.
Delgado, C. Ferreira, M. and Castelo Branco, M. (2010). The implementation of

lean Six Sigma in financial services organizations. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 21, 512-523.
Desai, D.A. (2006). Improving Customer Delivery Commitments the Six Sigma
Way: Case Study of an Indian Small Scale Industry. International Journal of
Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 2(1): 23-47.
Dombrowski, U. and Mielke, T. (2013). Lean leadership–fundamental principles

and their application. Procedia CIRP, 7: 569-574.
Dora M., Kumar M. Goubergen D.V. Molnar A. and Gellynck X. (2013).

Operational Performance and Critical Success Factors of Lean Manufacturing
in European Food Processing Sme. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
31(2): 156-164.
Doolen, T.L. and Hacker, E.H. (2009). Review of lean assessment in organzation
an exploratory study of lean practices by Electrnronics manufacture. Journal
of Manufacture system, 24(1): 55-67.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emiliani, M.L. and D.J. Stec. (2004). Leaders lost in transformation. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 26(5): 370-387.
Erfan, O.M. (2010). Application of lean manufacturing to improve the

performance of health care sector in Libya. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 10(6): 117-128.
Favaro, K. (2015). A brief history of the ways companies compete. Harvard

Business Review.
192
Feng, Q. and Manuel, C.M. (2008). Under the knife: a national survey of six sigma
programs in US healthcare organizations. International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance, 21(6): 535-547.
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: a process-based

perspective. International journal of operations & production management,
22(2), 152-194.
Gamal Aboelmaged, M. (2010). Six Sigma quality: a structured review and

implications for future research. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 27(3): 268-317.
George M.L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma for Service: How to use Lean Speed and Six
Sigma Quality to improve Services and Transactions. New York: McGraw-
Hill Press.
George, M.L (2003). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean
Production Speed. New York: McGraw-Hill Press.
George, M. Rowlands, D. Price, M. and Maxey, J. (2005). The lean six sigma
pocket toolbook.
Glover, W. J. Farris, J.A. Van Aken, E.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2011). Critical
success factors for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource
outcomes: An empirical study. International Journal of Production
Economics, 132(2): 197-213.
Goriwondo, W.M. and Maunga, N. (2012). Lean Six Sigma Application for
Sustainable Production: A Case Study for Margarine Production in
Zimbabwe. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring
Engineering, 1(5): 87-96.
Gunasekaran, A and LYU, J. (1997). Implementation of just in time in a small

company. Case study Production Planning & control, 8(4): 406-412.
Hahn, G.J. Doganaksoy, N. and Hoerl, R. (2000). The evolution of Six Sigma.
Quality Engineering, 12(3): 317- 326.
Harry, M.J. (1998). Six sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability. Quality
Progress, 31(5): 60-64.
193
Hekmatpanah, M. Sadroddin, M. Shahbaz, S. Mokhtari, F. and Fadavinia, F.
(2008). Six Sigma Process and its Impact on the Organizational Productivity.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2(7): 320-324.
Henderson, K.M. and Evans, J.R. (2000). Successful implementation of six sigma:
benchmarking General Electric Company. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 7(4): 260-282.
Hibadullah, S.N. Habidin, N.F. Zamri, F.I.M. Fuzi, N.M. and Desa, A.F.N.C.
(2014). Critical success factors of lean manufacturing practices for the
Malaysian automotive manufacturers. International Journal of Quality and
Innovation, 2(3): 256-271.
Ho, Y.C. Chang, O.C. and Wang, W.B. (2008). An Empirical Study of Key
Success Factors for Six Sigma Green Belt Projects at an Asian MRO
Company. Journal of Air Transport Management 14(5): 263– 269.
Huq, Z. Aghazadeh, S.M. Najjar, L. and Hafeznezami, S. (2010). Employee and

customer involvement: the driving force for Six-Sigma implementation. The
Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 11(1): 105-22.
Keller, A.Z. Fouad, R.H. and Zaitri, C.K. (1991). Status and structure of just-in-
time manufacturing in the UK. Just-in-Time Manufacturing Systems,
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Klefsjö, B. Wiklund, H. and Edgeman, R.L. (2001). Six sigma seen as a

methodology for total quality management. Measuring Business Excellence,
5(1): 31-5.
Khalil, E.N. and Abushaaban M.S. (2013). Seven Wastes Elimination targeted by
Lean Manufacturing Case Study “Gaza Strip Manufacturing Firms.
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, (1)
20: 68-80.
Khurshid, K. Kumar, M. and Waddell, D. (2012). Status of Quality Management

in Australian Manufacturing Sme. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul,
Turkey, 1266-1275.
Korde, A. and Mishra, S. (2003). Revitalizing Six Sigma with Lean. McKinsey &
Company, 1-23.
194
Krafcik, J. F. (1988). "Triumph of the lean production system." Sloan Management
Review 30(1): 41-52.
Kumar, M. Antony, J. Sigh, R.K. Twaari, M.K. Perry, D. (2006). Implementing

the Lean Sigma Framework in Indian SME: A Case Study. Journal of
Production Planning & Contro, 17(4): 407-423.
Kumar, M. Antony, J. (2009). Multiple case-study analysis of quality management

practices within UK Six Sigma and non-Six Sigma manufacturing small-and
medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 223(7): 925-
934.
Kumar, M. Antony, J., Antony, F.J. and Madu, C.N. (2007). Winning customer
loyalty in an Automotive company through Six Sigma: a case study. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International, 23(7): 849-866.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006). Benefits, Obstacles, and Future of Six Sigma
Approach. Technovation, 26(5): 708–715.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2010). Reducing employees' turnover in transactional

services: a Lean Six Sigma case study. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 59(7): 688-700.
Li, S.G. and Rong, Y.L. (2009). The Reliable Design of One-Piece Flow
Production System Using Fuzzy Ant Colony Optimization. Computers &
Operation Research, 36(5): 1656-1663.
Leseure-Zajkowska, E (2013). Contribution à l'implantation de la méthode lean six

sigma dans les Petites et moyennes entreprises pour l'amélioration des
processus. Doctoral dissertation, Ecole Centrale de Lille, Université
Technique de Gdansk.
Manotas Duque, D.F. and Rivera Cadavid, L. (2007). Lean manufacturing

measurement: the relationship between lean activities and lean metrics.
Estudios gerenciales, 23(105): 69-83.
Mano, Y. Akoten, J. Yoshino, Y. and Sonobe, T. (2014). Teaching KAIZEN to

small business owners: An experiment in a metalworking cluster in Nairobi.
Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 33: 25-42.
Marin-Garcia, J.A. and Bonavia, T. (2011). Strategic Priorities and Lean

Manufacturing Practices in Automotive Suppliers. Ten Years After. In
195
M.Chiaberge (Ed.), New Trends and Developments in Automotive
Engineering. InTech.
Matt, D.T. and Rauch, E. (2013). Implementation of Lean production in small sized
enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 12: 420-425.
McClusky, R. (2000). The Rise, fall, and revival of six sigma. Measuring Business
Excellence 4(2): 6–17.
Meade, D.J. Kumar, S. and White, B. (2010). Analysing the impact of the
implementation of lean manufacturing strategies on profitability. Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 61(5): 858-87.
Mendenhall, W. Beaver, R.J. Beaver, B.M. and Ahmed, S.E. (2011). Introduction
to Probability and Statistics, Third Canadian Edition. Nelson, Canada.
Moen, R., & Norman, C. (2006). Evolution of the PDCA cycle.
Mostafa, S. Dumrak, J. and Soltan, H. (2013). A framework for lean manufacturing

implementation. Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access
Journal 1(1): 44-64.
Mousa, A. (2013). Lean, Six Sigma and lean Six Sigma overview. International
Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 4(5): 1137-1153.
Montgomery, D. C. (2005). Introduction to statistical quality control. John Wiley

& Sons.
Montgomery, D.C. and Woodall, W.H. (2008). An overview of six sigma.

International Statistical Review, 76(3), 329-346.
Montgomery, D. C. (2009). Statistical quality control. New York: Wiley
Muthukumaran, G. Venkatachalapathy, V.S.K. and Pajaniradja, K. (2013) Impact

on integration of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma in various applications-
a review. Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 6(1): 98-101.
Nave, D. (2002). How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints.
Quality Progress, 35(3): 73-80.
Näslund, D. (2008). Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Sigma: Fads or Real Process
Improvement Methods?. Business Process Management Journal, (14)3: 269-
287.
196
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. crc

Press
Pamfiliea R. Petcu A.J. and Draghicic M. (2012). The Importance of Leadership

in Driving a Strategic Lean Six Sigma Management. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 85: 187-196.
Pande, P.S. Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000). The Six Sigma Way,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pingyu Y. and Yu Y. (2010). The Barriers to SMEs’ Implementation of Lean

Production and Countermeasures: Based on SMS in Wenzhou. International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(2): 220-225.
Pojasek, R.B. (2003). Lean, Six Sigma, and the systems approach: management
initiatives for process improvement. Environmental Quality Management,
13(2): 85-92.
Powell, D. Alfnes, E. Strandhagen, J.O. and Dreyer, H. (2013). The concurrent

application of lean production and ERP: Towards an ERP-based lean
implementation process. Computers in Industry, 64(3): 324-335.
Puvanasvaran, A. P. (2012). Enhancing Productivity Through Lean Behavior.

INTECH Open Access Publisher.
Pyzdek, T. and Keller, P.A. (2003). The six sigma handbook (Vol. 486). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Radharamanan, R. Godoy L.P. Watanahe, K.I. (1996). Quality and Productivity

Improvement in a Custom-Made Furniture Industry using Kaizen. Computers
and Industrial Engineering, 31(1-2): 471- 474.
Rahani, A.R., and al-Ashraf, M. (2012). Production flow analysis through value
stream mapping: a lean manufacturing process case study. Procedia
Engineering, 41:1727-1734.
Roberts, S.W. (1959). Control chart tests based on geometric moving average,
Technometrics, 1, 239-250.
197
Romaniello, V. Renna, P. and Cinque, V. (2011). A Continuous Improvement and
Monitoring Performance System: Monitor - Analysis - Action – Review
(MAAR). IBIMA Business Review.15: 1-15.
Rose, A.N.M., Deros, B.M., and Rahman, M.N.A. (2014). Critical Success Factors
for Implementing Lean Manufacturing in Malaysian Automotive Industry.
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 8(10):
1191-1200.
Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality
management practices and operational performance. Journal of operations
management, 17(4), 393-409.
Scherrer-Rathje, M. Boyle, T.A. and Deflorin P. (2009). Lean, Take Two!

Reflections from the Second Attempt at Lean Implementation. Business
Horizons, 52(1): 79-88.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles,
and performance. Journal of operations management, 21(2): 129-149.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean
production. Journal of operations management, 25(4): 785-805.
Shahin, A. and Ghasemaghaei, M. (2010). Service poka yoke. International Journal

of Marketing Studies, 2(2): 190-201.
Salah, S., Rahim, A. and Carretero, J.A. (2010). The integration of Six Sigma and
lean management. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(3): 249-274.
Sharma, A. and Moody, P. E. (2001). The Perfect Engine: Driving Manufacturing

Breakthroughs with the Global Production System. Simon and Schuster.
Shewhart, W.A. (1925). The application of statistics as an aid in maintaining

quality of a manufactured product. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 20(152): 546-548.
Shingo, S. (1988). Non-stock production: the Shingo system of continuous

improvement. Productivity Press.
Sibley, M.J. and Swanger, R.N. (2012). One contractor’s use of lean/Six Sigma to
address challenges. CFMA Building Profits, 1-3.
198
Snee, R.D. (2010). Lean Six Sigma – Getting better all the Time. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1(1): 9-29.
Sorqvist, L. (2009). Successful Integration of Six Sigma and Lean. World

Conference on Quality and Improvement, 63:1-8.
Taghizadegan S. (2006). Essentials of Lean Six Sigma. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Venkatesh, J. (2007). An introduction to total productive maintenance (TPM). The

plant maintenance resource center, 3-20.
Wiklund, H. and Wiklund, P.S. (2002). Widening the Six Sigma concept: An
approach to improve organizational learning. Total Quality Management,
13(2): 233-239.
Wang, J.X. (2011). Lean Manufacturing: Business Bottom-Line Based. Boca

Raton, Fl: CRC Press.
Wilson, L. (2010). How to implement lean manufacture. McGraw_Hill companies

Inc.
Wong, Y.C. Wong, K.Y. and Ali, A.W. (2009). A Study on Lean Manufacturing
Implementation in the Malaysian Electrical and Electronics Industry.
European Journal of Scientific Research, 38(4): 521-535.
Zailani, S. and Sasthriyar S. (2011). Investigation on the Six Sigma Critical

Success Factors. European Journal of Scientific Research, 57(1): 124-132.
Zare Mehrjerdi, Y. (2011). Six-Sigma: methodology, tools and its future.

Assembly Automation, 31(1): 79-88.
Forman, E. and Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and

priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational
research, 108(1): 165-169.
Hassan, M.K. (2013). Applying lean six sigma for waste reduction in a
manufacturing environment”, American Journal of Industrial Engineering,
1(2): pp. 28-35.
Hu, G. Wang, L. Fetch, S. and Bidanda, B. (2008). A multi-objective model for

project portfolio selection to implement lean and Six Sigma concepts.
International journal of production research, 46 (23): 6611-6625.
199
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2010). Reducing employees' turnover in transactional
services: a Lean Six Sigma case study. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 59(7): 688-700.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting,
resources allocation. New York: McGraw.
Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”,
International journal of services sciences, 1(1): 83-98.
Saaty, T.L. (2007). Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the

AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex
variables. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7): 860-891.
Su, C. T. and Chou, C. J. (2008). A systematic methodology for the creation of Six
Sigma projects: A case study of semiconductor foundry. Expert Systems with
Applications, 34(4): 2693-2703.
Ramanathan, R. (2001). A Note on the Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for
Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management,
63 (1): 27-35.
Triantaphyllou, E. and Mann, S. H. (1995). Using the analytic hierarchy process

for decision making in engineering applications: Some challenges.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2
(1): 35-44.
Vargas, L.G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its
applications. European journal of operational research. 48(1): 2-8.
Womack, J. P. Jones D.T and Roos D. (1990). The machine THAT changed the
World, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-
review/files/countries sheets/2012/france_en.pdf
L'USINE NOUVELLE.
http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/les-grands-groupes-regrettent-de-ne-pas-s-
etre-mis-plus-tot-au-lean-selon-nicolas-gaultier.N234449
American Society for Quality

WWW.ASQ.COM
200
APPENDIX
Figure 1.The weight of alternative for financial performance
Figure 2. The weight of alternative for innovation performance
Figure 3. The weight of alternative for operational performance
201
Veuillez répondre à chacune des questions suivantes. Merci.
Quel votre poste actuel au sein de l’entreprise?
1. Chef de projet
2. Responsable Qualité
3. Opération Manager
4. Direction.
5. Consultant
6. Chef de l’entreprise
7. Autres: ………
Quel est le secteur de votre entreprise ?
1.Electronique
2.Aérospatiale
3.Automobile
4.Pharmaceutique / Médical
5.Autres:…
Quel l’âge de l’entreprise ?
1. Moins de 5 ans
2. Entre 5 et 10 ans
3. Entre 10 et 15 ans
4. 15 ans et plus
Quel est le nombre d'employés au sein de votre entreprise ?
1. De 0 à 9 salariés (micro)
2. Du 10 au 49 (petite)
3. De 50 à 249 (moyenne)
4. A partir de 250 et plus (grande)
Votre entreprise possède-t-elle l’une de certifications standards pour la qualité (Ex. ISO, EN900, ...) ?.
1. Oui
2. Non
Si oui, veuillez la préciser :
Quelles Ceintures de Six Sigma avez-vous au sein de votre entreprise ?
1. None
2. Yellow belt
3. Green bell
4. Black belt
5. Master Black belt
6. Champion
Parmi les méthodes suivantes quelles sont celles qui sont dans votre entreprise ?
1. Lean Manufacturing
2. Six sigma
203
3. Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma
4. Aucune
Selon vous, quels sont les avantages retirés de la méthode que votre entreprise a mise en œuvre?
Avantages fortement en être en Pas d'accord Ni se mettre Tout à fait

désaccord désaccord d'accord ni en d'accord d'accord
désaccord
(Neutre)
améliorer la qualité
Augmenter le profit
Réduire la
variabilité de
processus
Améliorer la
productivité
Réduire le temps de
production
Réduire le coût
Forte implication
des salariés.
Augmenter les
suggestions des
salariés
Augmenter la
satisfaction du
client
Diminuer les stocks
Réduire le taux de
turover
Créer un
environnement de
sécurité dans
l'entreprise
Depuis combien d'années votre entreprise a-t-elle implémentée ces méthodes (sélectionnées ci-dessus)?
1. Moins de 3 ans
2. Entre 3 et 6 ans
3. Entre 6 et 9 ans
4. 9 ans et plus
Votre entreprise met-elle en œuvre les méthodes Lean et Six Sigma simultanément ?
1. Oui.
2. Non
Selon vous, quelles sont les raisons de ne pas mettre en œuvre Lean et Six Sigma simultanément ?
1. Finance
2. la culture de l’entreprise
204
3. Manque de connaissance / savoir-faire
4. Absence de soutien de la direction
5. Autres raisons
Selon vous, quelles sont les raisons de mettre en œuvre Lean et Six Sigma simultanément ?
1. Une amélioration rapide

2. Améliorer la vente
3. Augmenter la satisfaction du client
4. Insuffisance amélioration, si nous mettons séparément en œuvre Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma
Comment votre entreprise a mis en œuvre la méthode Lean Manufacturing?
N’est pas Mise en Mise en Mise en œuvre Mise en œuvre

Méthode mise en œuvre dans œuvre dans dans la plupart dans toute
œuvre un petit quelques des l’entreprise y
nombre de départements départements. compris les
départements fournisseurs.
Lean
Manufacturing
Comment votre entreprise a mis en œuvre la méthode Six sigma ?
N’est pas Mise en Mise en Mise en œuvre Mise en œuvre

Méthode mise en œuvre dans œuvre dans dans la plupart dans toute
œuvre un petit quelques des l’entreprise y
nombre de départements départements. compris les
départements fournisseurs.
Six sigma
Quelles pratiques sont-elles pertinentes pour votre entreprise ? (Choisissez de 1 -5, tel que 1 : la mise
en œuvre et 2 : Mise en œuvre faible et 3 : Mise en œuvre moyenne et 4 : mise en œuvre forte et 5 : la
mise en œuvre complète)
Parmi ces différents outils vous pouvez dire quelles pratiques sont-elles pertinentes pour votre
entreprise?
Outils 1 2 3 4 5
Systém 5S
équipe Kaizen
Standardisation du travail
Maintenance Productive Total
Takit time
Once piece flow
Single minute exchange of die
Cellules en u
Poka-yoke
Contrôle visuel.
Gemba
Brainstorming
Value Stream Mapping
205
PDCA
Système Kanban
Fiches de vérification
Diagramme de Pareto
SIPOC
Plan d’expérience
Carte de contrôle
Diagramme d’Ishikawa
Flow chart
Voix du consommateur
Analyze des Modes de Défaillance, de leurs Effets et de leur Criticité
Défauts Par Million d’Opportunités.
Analyse de la régression
DMAIC
Selon vous, comment estimer le niveau de succès de la méthode mise en œuvre dans votre entreprise?
Méthode N’est pas Succès Succès Succès. Succès Succès

mise en Faible Moyen Bien. Excellent
œuvre dans
l’entreprise.
Lean Manufacturing
Six sigma
A votre avis, quel processus une PME devrait suivre pour la mise en œuvre de Lean et Six Sigma
1. Implémenter Lean manufacturing et puis Implémenter six sigma

2. Implémenter six sigma et puis Implémenter lean manufacturing
3. Implémenter Lean manufacturing et Six Sigma simultanément
4. Indifférent
5. Je ne sais pas
A votre avis, Indiquer le degré d'importance de chacun des facteurs qui sont essentiels à la réussite de
la mise en œuvre de Lean manufacturing (Choisissez de 1 à 5 en cochant le cas échéant pour chaque
facteur en ce qui concerne son, où 1 signifie pas important et cinq désigne facteur critique).
facteur sans légèrement Important Très Critique

importance important important
Engagement et soutien de la
direction de l’entreprise
Implication et participation
des salariés
Associer la méthode Lean
aux fournisseurs.
Superviser le progrès
Compétences et l'expertise.
leadership
Le changement de la culture
de l’entreprise.
communication
Éducation et formation.
206
équipe Kaizen
Lier la méthode à la stratégie
de l’entreprise.
Participation de Consultants
Système de récompense
Expliquer les outils et les
techniques de la méthode
Lean qui effectuent emploi
dans un bureau qui effectuent
des emplois dans la
boutique-de-chaussée
techniques de la méthode
Lean qui effectuent emploi
dans un bureau
Veuillez nous informer de tout autre(s) facteur(s) de succès que vous pensiez très important(s) pour la
réussite de la mise en œuvre de Lean manufacturing….
Facteurs de succès: méthode six sigma
A votre avis, Indiquer le degré d'importance de chacun des facteurs qui sont essentiels à la réussite de
la mise en œuvre de Six sigma (Choisissez de 1 à 5 en cochant le cas échéant pour chaque facteur en ce
qui concerne son, où 1 signifie pas important et cinq désigne facteur critique).
facteur sans légèrement Important très Critique

importance important important
Engagement de la direction
et le soutien
Participation des employés
La méthode de liaison six
sigma aux fournisseurs
Compétences de gestion de
projet
Compétences et l'expertise
Priorisation et sélection des
projets et leur suivi et
supervision
Le changement culturel
Belt system
Éducation et formation.
Lier Six Sigma aux clients
Lier la méthode six sigma à
la stratégie d'entreprise
Participation de Consultant
Système de récompense
techniques de la méthode six
sigma qui effectuent emploi
dans un bureau
qui effectuent des emplois
dans la boutique-de-
207
chaussée.
techniques de la méthode six
sigma qui effectuent emploi
dans un bureau
Lier Six Sigma aux
ressources humaines
Veuillez nous informer de tout autre(s) facteur(s) de succès que vous pensiez très important(s) pour la
réussite de la mise en œuvre de six sigma ….
208
Ibrahim Alhuraish
Evaluation of the performance of organizations that implemented Lean Manufacturing
and Six Sigma methods: Application to French industries
L’évaluation des performances des organisations implémentant les
méthodes Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma : Application aux industries
Françaises
Résumé Abstract
De nombreuses industries ont mené des recherches en vue de Many industries conduct research in order to decide on
choisir la méthode appropriée afin d'améliorer les résultats, the appropriate methodology for delivering optimal
notamment Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma. Ce travail de performance outcomes such as Lean Manufacturing or
thèse s’intéresse principalement à l’influence de
Six Sigma. Therefore, this research shows the influence
l’implémentation de ces méthodes au sein des entreprises
françaises, selon trois critères : financier, opérationnel et of different categories based on the implementation
innovation. Les résultats de nos recherches montrent que les method against three criteria: financial performance,
entreprises, appliquant Lean Manufacturing et Six Sigma, operational performance and innovation performance.
sont plus efficaces pour l'amélioration des performances en Research results indicate that companies implementing
matières financière et opérationnelle. Par ailleurs, les Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma were more
entreprises qui utilisent juste une partie des pratiques de Lean effective in improving company performance across
Manufacturing et/ou de Six Sigma ont montré des financial and operational dynamics. Additionally, it
améliorations limitées. En ce qui concerne le volet innovation, shows companies who implemented Lean
nous avons montré que l’implémentation de Lean
Manufacturing only saw improvements in innovation
Manufacturing est suffisante pour avoir une amélioration des
performances. En outre, nous avons constaté que les pratiques performance. Moreover, we found that Lean
de Lean et Six Sigma, telles que One Piece Flow, Kanban, 5S, Manufacturing and Six Sigma practices such as One
etc. contribuent fortement à l’amélioration des performances. Piece Flow, Kanban, 5S, etc, supported increases in
Les résultats statistiques montrent également que les facteurs companies’ performance. The statistical results also
clés, de la réussite de la mise en place de Lean Manufacturing show that the key factors for the success of Lean
et Six Sigma, peuvent être significativement différents selon Manufacturing and Six Sigma implementation could
la méthode. differ depending on the method employed.
Mots clés
Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, analyse statistque,
Méthodes multi-critères, Analytic Hierarchy Process,
Key word
évaluation de la performance, les outils de qualité,
Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, statically analysis,
amélioration continue, ingénierie industrielle.
Multi criteria decision method, Analytic Hierarchy
Process, evaluate the performance, quality tools,
continuous improvement, industrial engineering.
L4u L’Université Nantes Angers Le Mans

Thesealhuraish Compressed

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Thesealhuraish Compressed

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Evaluation of the performance of organizations that

implemented Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma

To cite this version:

HAL Id: tel-01435145

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

Discipline : Sciences de l’ingénieur

Soutenue le 05 juillet 2016

École doctorale : 503 (STIM)

L’évaluation des performances des

Rapporteurs : M. Benoît Eynard, Professeur des universités, Université de Technologie de Compiègne

Examinateurs : M. Dumoulin Régis, Professeur des universités, Université d’Angers

Je tiens à exprimer toute ma gratitude et remercie vivement Monsieur Christian Roblédo,

Mes remerciements s’adressent à Monsieur Georges Abdulnour , Professeur des universités à

Je tiens à remercier Monsieur Dumoulin Régis, Professeur des universités, à l’Université

1.1. RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................ 21

2.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 26

2.7.1. Implementation Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma Isolation ................................ 46

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 56

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................... 56

4. ANALYSIS THE IMPACT OF LEAN MANUFACTURING AND/OR SIX-SIGMA

4.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 71

4.2.1. Age ......................................................................................................................... 83

4.4. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 116

5. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANUFACTURING AND

5.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 119

6. EVALUATION OF COMPANIES PERFORMANCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

6.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 154

6.3.1. Evaluation companies performance based on optimal methods .......................... 157

6.4. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 186

GENERAL CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH................................................. 187

Figure 2.1: Lean manufacturing principles ................................................................................ 29

Figure 3.1: Classification of companies based on professional ................................................. 64

Figure 4.1: Frequency of responses enterprises on increase profit............................................. 73

Figure 6.1: Hierarchical structure decision............................................................................... 159

Table 2.1 Five phases for Six Sigma .......................................................................................... 31

Table 3.1 Measure companies performance ............................................................................... 57

Two Journal Articles:

Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. Kobi, A. and Azzabi, L (2016). Estimate of Companies Performance

Six International Conference:

Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Evaluation the operational performance of implementing

Alhuraish, I. Robledo, C. and Kobi, A. Key Success Factors of Implementing Lean

 Y-a-t-il u e a i e sp ifi ue au e t ep ises f a çaises pou la ise e œuv e de Lea

1.1. Research problem

1.2. Research Investigation and Question

2.2. History of Lean Manufacturing

2.3. Lean Manufacturing

Lean manufacturing operates on a philosophy that production is maximized through the

2.3.2. Lean principle

2.5. Six Sigma method

Define the requirement and expectations of the customer

Six-sigma methodologies are applied in an organization as processes of solving quality problems

Table 2.2 Sigma level

2.5.2. Benefits of Six Sigma

Company/project Metric/measures Benefit/savings

2.6. Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma Tools

2.6.2. Cause and Effect Diagram

Figure 2.2: Illustration for Ishikawa Diagram (http://www.vertex42.com)

2.6.3. Check Sheet

Figure 2.4: Typical control chart (Montgomery, 2009)

�̅� : Average subgroup

The 3 sigma control limits for �̅ bar chart is presented as:

�̿: The Estimate average

A2 : only depends on the sample size

2.6.5. Design of Experiment